Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 3 · Question 17

Incorrect. This answer is equally true for both theories—it doesn't speak to whether these strikes are random or part of an organized natural process. This answer more addresses the causal relationship suggested by the consensus, not the Geophysicist's theory over the conventional one.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), this answer might explain how several strikes could lead to a mass extinction, but it doesn't speak to whether that was random or a part of an organized natural process.

Incorrect. If anything, this answer suggests that the pattern was when a cluster randomly struck Earth, providing an explanation for the conventional theory instead of the iconoclastic one.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Conventional view - Asteroid strikes are random
Iconoclastic geophysicist - Some craters form an unusual pattern, so the asteroid strikes are a part of a natural process.
Consensus - The craters coincide with a mass extinction

Answer Anticipation:
Let's be sure that we're tracking the viewpoints correctly here—notably, the last point. There are two theories—asteroid strikes are random; asteroid strikes are part of an organized natural process—and a consensus view between these two points—the one set of asteroid strikes caused a mass extinction.

We're tasked with strengthening the second view—that the asteroid strikes are part of an organized, natural process. What's that based on? That there are a set of asteroids that form a pattern (an unusual one, but a pattern nonetheless). Since the consensus view is one that both sides agree with, it presumably supports both of their sides, so that's not a premise that's likely to help us strengthen this argument.

So we should be looking for an answer that connects the pattern seen in these asteroid crates with there being a natural process that caused the strikes. That's a correlation/causation jump, and so we should be looking for an answer that:
(1) Eliminates an alternative cause (since the alternative presented is "random strikes," this would involve establishing that the pattern is just a coincidence)
(2) Finds more instances of asteroids striking in a pattern
(3) Find a control group (this doesn't make sense here—a lack of craters not in a pattern?)
(4) Explain the causal mechanism

Answer Explanation:
This answer provides a natural process that would result in asteroid strikes not being random, but instead organized. If there's something in the Earth that influences how asteroids strike, then the Geophysicist's theory has a causal mechanism by which it can work, thus strengthening it.

Key Takeaway:
Be sure to note who holds what views in a stimulus that features multiple viewpoints. Here, several answers address the consensus view—a belief that is held by everyone in question. That was a point of agreement between the Iconoclastic Geophysicist and other scientists, so addressing it without tying it to the view of the Geophysicist would have a neutral effect on the argument.

Incorrect. If anything, this weakens the argument by suggesting that the "pattern" in that one case might have just been a random coincidence.