I got it right, but why?

I would say to treat it like you would a strengthen or weaken or error question. Your job is just to dissect and understand what makes the argument flawed, and to find the same error in another argument. So here, I think the issue is that the author has jumped straight to direct causation. From evidence of correlation, they say that the first thing directly causes the second thing. This ignores the possibility of indirect causation, such as the rain leading to greater humidity, which raises temperature, which raises the odds of hurricanes, or of them both being results of the same cause. I would them look for something that made the same mistake, subject to the same critique.

Thank you!