Insufficient rain can cause crops

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match10% picked this

   concludes, merely from the fact that the period of insufficient rain occurred before the nation’s crisis, that insufficient

   Does the author conclude that insufficient rain caused the crisis? Sure. Does the author's evidence state that a period of insufficient rain occurred right before the crisis? Nope. The evidence just provides a general rule that insufficient rain can cause certain things.

   10%
2. B

   Out of Scope: "justified"1% picked this

   fails to take into account the possibility that the scarcity was not severe enough to justify the government’s

   This argument isn't in any way evaluating the merits of the government's response. So this idea that "food wasn't so scarce that govt needed to step in" wouldn't be an objection to the author. "Something else caused the crisis" / "we've had plenty of rain, prior to this crisis" is what would be an objection to this author.

   1%
3. C

   Not Equivocation1% picked this

   uses the term “crisis” equivocally in the reasoning, referring to both a political crisis and

   The word crisis is used consistently. I'm not sure whether we'd call the crisis political, economic, ecological, health-related, food-related, or several of the above. But both times crisis is being used, it's referring to this recent period of faltering crops and rising food prices.

   1%
4. D

   Correct81% picked this

   infers, merely from the fact that one event could have caused a second event, that the first event

   Why this is right

   Does the author conclude that one event caused another? Yes. She concludes that insufficient rain helped cause the faltering crops / rising prices. Does the only piece of evidence say that "insufficient rain could have caused faltering crops / rising prices"? Yes.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   81%
5. E

   Backwards Logic6% picked this

   takes for granted that any condition that is necessary for an increase in agricultural prices is also sufficient

   This author takes for granted that a condition (insufficient rain) that is sufficient for higher agricultural prices is also necessary. The premise is that insufficient rain ? rising prices But when the author argues that, SINCE rising prices ? insufficient rain He's acting like insufficient rain is an automatic (necessary) inference we can make from seeing faltering crops and rising prices.

   6%