PrepTest 144

Incorrect. The opening statement that predicts what will happen is the conclusion of the argument.

Incorrect. Not only is the statement in question not the main point of the argument, but there also is only one conclusion in this argument, so this answer is wrong for two reasons.

Incorrect. This answer describes an intermediate conclusion, but the statement in question builds off of the previous statement—it isn't supported by it. It establishes a connection that doesn't relate to the preceding statement in connecting larger clouds to heavier rain.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
A warm atmosphere causes hotter oceans causes faster evaporation causing faster-forming rain clouds
A warm atmosphere holds more moisture causing larger clouds causing more heavy rain
Therefore Ð Global warming will increase the likelihood of heavier rain

Answer Anticipation:
This argument starts off with a prediction, and predictions tend to be conclusions supported by the reasoning behind that prediction.

After that opening statement, the Meteorologist dives into a long causal chain that connects elements of the conclusion, and then a second causal chain that does the same. These two causal chains, in connecting elements of the conclusion, both serve as premises.

The statement in question is the end point of that second causal chain, so the correct answer should reflect that it's a premise supporting the conclusion of the argument. It might also reference the causality, but it doesn't need to.

Answer Explanation:
This answer describes a premise, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Don't get trapped into picking an answer in an Argument Structure question that refers to some reasoning element of the argument but doesn't get the purpose of the statement in question correct! Matching the language but describing the argument incorrectly is the hallmark of a common trap answer.

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to pick it by bringing up causality, which is prevalent in the premises here—including the statement in question. However, the conclusion is about an increased likelihood of heavy downpours, and the statement in question discusses a situation where they're more likely, so the statement in question absolutely is intended as support for that conclusion.