Issue with C

@b_theo, The best approach is to focus on the type of flaw as opposed to the specific language/ substance. The stimulus tells us that: (1) winds trigger the formation of hurricanes (2) when rain falls in sub-Saharan Africa, hurricanes are frequent in the US (3) Therefore, rains must promote the ability of the wind to form hurricanes. The argument commits a logical fallacy because it presumes that rains cause high atmospheric winds and winds trigger the formation of hurricanes, whereas the premises only tell us that the second part of this logical chain is true, whereas there is only a correlation between rain and high winds/ hurricanes. We know that correlation is indicative of but never determinative of causation, we cannot conclude that rains do indeed cause the winds & in turn, hurricanes. There might be a confounding variable responsible for both rains and high winds or the correlation might be purely coincidental. This is a classic correlation/ causation flaw and that is what we should be looking for among the answer choices. (C) exhibits the same flaw. Many people who became successful entrepreneurs played sports in college. Therefore, playing competitive sports must cause one to become a successful entrepreneur. Just because two variables are correlated, we cannot infer a causal relationship between them, it is equally likely that people that are good at teamwork and are competitive play competitive sports and become successful entrepreneurs. Let me know if this helps and if you have any further questions,