Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 3 · Question 8

Incorrect. By drawing a distinction between times when sunspots happen and northern lights appear, this answer, if anything, weakens the argument.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't connect sunspots to northern lights, let alone the 1128 sunspots to northern lights in the same year.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
A monk recorded unusually big sunspots, and northern lights were seen in Korea a few days later. Sunspots are generally followed a few days later by northern lights, so the Korean observation supports the monk's.

Answer Anticipation:
This whole argument is based on general correlations, and a connection between sunspots and northern lights has already been established in the premises. Therefore, in order to strengthen this argument, the correct answer is going to have to connect the specifics of this situation (since the general connection has been established).

The sunspots the monk saw were noted as being "unusually large," and the northern lights were noted as being seen in southern Korea. Connecting unusually large sunspots to northern lights being seen in that area is one avenue the correct answer could take—but anything connecting the specifics here would work.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the specific instances of sunspots and northern lights observed in 1128. If northern lights reaching Korea require heavy sunspot activity, then the monk's observation that the sunspots were "unusually large" is supported by the northern lights seen in that area.

Key Takeaway:
When a general connection is already drawn between the elements that need to be connected in an argument, the correct answer to a Strengthen question will likely connect the specific details of the scenario from the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to think that the monk's view was obstructed, so maybe his observation wasn't perfect. However, if anything, that would call his observation into question, undermining the argument.

Incorrect. The monk drawing the sunspots doesn't help conclude that the Korean northern lights helps to confirm his observation.