reply2spg wrote:Is this a Kaplan Question? All CR's are driving me crazy....What is the problem with A?

I am down to A and D....and I choose A.....as usual I am wrong (99% I am wrong whenever I close down to 2 out of 5. I don't know what to do)

Komal - Could you please post OE?

komal wrote:

reply2spg wrote:Is this a Kaplan Question? All CR's are driving me crazy....What is the problem with A?

I am down to A and D....and I choose A.....as usual I am wrong (99% I am wrong whenever I close down to 2 out of 5. I don't know what to do)

Komal - Could you please post OE?

Here's the OE.. source is kaplan 800

This passage tells a story similar to the anonymous fable of the poison grain, in which all of a kingdom's grain crop is mysteriously poisoned, causing anyone who ate it to go insane. The author describes a wave of unusual violence that swept over a medieval town for a period of five years, characterized by acts ranging from self-destruction to murder. That's followed by a description of a chain of events, beginning with an unusual shift in weather patterns that coincided with the violent period. Due to unusually heavy rainfall, the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus, which can cause ergotism, a disease characterized by hallucinations and other psychological abnormalities. The author then concludes that the violence was caused by ("was the result of") the freakish weather conditions. There's the element of causation alluded to above.

When presented with a causal argument-especially when looking for a rebuttal that argument- the first thing to do is check to see that the causal mechanism described is appropriate. The author blames the unusual acts of violence in the town on ergot fungus. However, he doesn't know for a fact that the ergot fungus was present in the town's wheat. He knows conditions were ripe for the formation of the fungus (i.e., lots of rain), and he knows fungus-infected wheat can cause psychological disturbances-but the crucial point, the actual presence of the fungus, is mere supposition. (Note how the author says that the wheat crop "probably" fell prey to the fungus.) As (D) points out, the conclusion treats the probable occurrence of the fungus as if it were a certain, actual occurrence. And therein lies the scope shift as well; the author argues from probability in the evidence to a clear-cut, definite statement of actual causation in the conclusion. In arguing against this reasoning, it would be perfectly appropriate to point out that the author misses the distinction described in (D), the correct answer.

reply2spg wrote:Then what is wrong with A? Ergotism may cause psychological side effects....however it is not certain and as per the stimuli there is no evidence of the same....so how can author conclude that 'the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions'

komal wrote:

reply2spg wrote:Is this a Kaplan Question? All CR's are driving me crazy....What is the problem with A?

I am down to A and D....and I choose A.....as usual I am wrong (99% I am wrong whenever I close down to 2 out of 5. I don't know what to do)

Komal - Could you please post OE?

Here's the OE.. source is kaplan 800

This passage tells a story similar to the anonymous fable of the poison grain, in which all of a kingdom's grain crop is mysteriously poisoned, causing anyone who ate it to go insane. The author describes a wave of unusual violence that swept over a medieval town for a period of five years, characterized by acts ranging from self-destruction to murder. That's followed by a description of a chain of events, beginning with an unusual shift in weather patterns that coincided with the violent period. Due to unusually heavy rainfall, the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus, which can cause ergotism, a disease characterized by hallucinations and other psychological abnormalities. The author then concludes that the violence was caused by ("was the result of") the freakish weather conditions. There's the element of causation alluded to above.

When presented with a causal argument-especially when looking for a rebuttal that argument- the first thing to do is check to see that the causal mechanism described is appropriate. The author blames the unusual acts of violence in the town on ergot fungus. However, he doesn't know for a fact that the ergot fungus was present in the town's wheat. He knows conditions were ripe for the formation of the fungus (i.e., lots of rain), and he knows fungus-infected wheat can cause psychological disturbances-but the crucial point, the actual presence of the fungus, is mere supposition. (Note how the author says that the wheat crop "probably" fell prey to the fungus.) As (D) points out, the conclusion treats the probable occurrence of the fungus as if it were a certain, actual occurrence. And therein lies the scope shift as well; the author argues from probability in the evidence to a clear-cut, definite statement of actual causation in the conclusion. In arguing against this reasoning, it would be perfectly appropriate to point out that the author misses the distinction described in (D), the correct answer.