-
kellogs4toniee
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:21 am
This is from the Princeton Review, Bin 3 of the practice verbal section. I have been evaluating the explanation at the back for the last like 10 minutes. I couldn't seem to wrap myself on the concept until just recently. Wanted to share this and see if you guys shared the same thoughts. I answered D. The books answer is below. Let's start with the question:
Scientists today accept that the increased severity of hurricanes in the last 10 years has been a result of warmer water in the Caribbean, which "feeds" the storms as they pass over it by a mechanism not yet completely understood. Thus, these severe hurricanes are yet more evidence of global warming.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?
A. Accurate statistics on the warming of the earth do not go back more than 100 years.
B. Scientists have not discovered a new undersea current, fueled by an undersea volcano, which could have funneled warmed water into the Caribbean.
C. The arctic ice caps have been losing three feet of circumference each year for the past five years.
D. A new modeling computer program projects that the severity of hurricanes will increase over the next 10 years.
E. Some scientists believe they will soon prove that the mechanism by which a storm picks up energy from warm water is based on convection.
Here is the explanation from the book:
The best answer is B. While choice B might seem unlikely, it strengthens this casual argument by removing a possible alternate cause. Took me a while to wrap myself around this, because it seemed to be 99% times that if B were true, i would bring up an alternative cause which theoretically should "weaken" the relationship. After re-reading it for 20 minutes, I guess what the explanation is saying is that if it were TRUE that scientists have NOT found the undersea volcano yet, then that is more reason why they arrived at the original argument in the paragraph.
The only way I could grasp my mind to accept that explanation is by thinking mathematically, and that still took me a long time AFTER reading the explanation. Does anyone else agree with me here?
Does this mean for strengthen questions on casual relationships, I should try to find the one that eliminates an alternative cause?
Much appreciated in advance.
Scientists today accept that the increased severity of hurricanes in the last 10 years has been a result of warmer water in the Caribbean, which "feeds" the storms as they pass over it by a mechanism not yet completely understood. Thus, these severe hurricanes are yet more evidence of global warming.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?
A. Accurate statistics on the warming of the earth do not go back more than 100 years.
B. Scientists have not discovered a new undersea current, fueled by an undersea volcano, which could have funneled warmed water into the Caribbean.
C. The arctic ice caps have been losing three feet of circumference each year for the past five years.
D. A new modeling computer program projects that the severity of hurricanes will increase over the next 10 years.
E. Some scientists believe they will soon prove that the mechanism by which a storm picks up energy from warm water is based on convection.
Here is the explanation from the book:
The best answer is B. While choice B might seem unlikely, it strengthens this casual argument by removing a possible alternate cause. Took me a while to wrap myself around this, because it seemed to be 99% times that if B were true, i would bring up an alternative cause which theoretically should "weaken" the relationship. After re-reading it for 20 minutes, I guess what the explanation is saying is that if it were TRUE that scientists have NOT found the undersea volcano yet, then that is more reason why they arrived at the original argument in the paragraph.
The only way I could grasp my mind to accept that explanation is by thinking mathematically, and that still took me a long time AFTER reading the explanation. Does anyone else agree with me here?
Does this mean for strengthen questions on casual relationships, I should try to find the one that eliminates an alternative cause?
Much appreciated in advance.
