In the previous two years

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Circular4% picked this

   contains a premise that presupposes the truth of

   Circular reasoning occurs when a premise already contains or presupposes the conclusion, such that the argument essentially proves itself by assuming what it set out to demonstrate. That is not what happens here. The premise — that September had more rain than July in the previous two years — is a factual observation about past events. The conclusion — that September will probably have more rain than July this year — is a prediction about the future. These are logically distinct claims: one is about what has already happened, the other about what will happen. The premise does not secretly assume the conclusion; it just provides inadequate evidence for it. The problem is insufficient data, not self-referential logic.

   4%
2. B

   Correct93% picked this

   draws an inference about a future event on the basis of a very limited number of instances

   Why this is right

   The argument observes a pattern over just two years and uses it to predict what will happen this year. Two instances is an extremely limited basis for drawing any general conclusion, let alone a prediction about future weather. Rainfall patterns can vary dramatically from year to year due to shifting weather systems, El Nino cycles, and countless other variables. The fact that September outpaced July for two consecutive years could easily be coincidental rather than indicative of any underlying trend. The argument treats this tiny sample as though it reveals a reliable pattern, when in reality it reveals almost nothing about what to expect going forward. This answer correctly identifies the core vulnerability: the inference about the future rests on far too few past observations to carry any real predictive weight.

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

   93%
3. C

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   overemphasizes the possibility that average rainfall statistics could be skewed by large rainfall

   The argument does not discuss average rainfall statistics, nor does it rely on averages that could be distorted by outlier events. The evidence is simply that September had more rain than July in each of the previous two years. The concern about large storms skewing averages is a valid statistical consideration in other contexts, but it does not describe what is happening in this argument. The argument's problem is not that its data might be distorted by outliers; the problem is that there are only two data points in the first place. Even if each year's rainfall figures were perfectly representative and undistorted, two years would still be too few to support a predictive conclusion. This answer addresses a statistical concern that is not relevant to the argument's actual flaw.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match2% picked this

   concludes that two phenomena are associated merely from the claim that there are many instances in which

   This answer describes a flaw in which someone observes that two things often co-occur and concludes they are associated. But the argument here is not about the association between two phenomena — it is about predicting future rainfall based on past rainfall. The argument does not claim that September and heavy rain are "associated" in some general sense; it observes a specific pattern over two years and predicts that pattern will continue. Additionally, this answer mentions "many instances," which mischaracterizes the evidence. The argument relies on only two instances, which is precisely the problem. The flaw described here — correlating co-occurrence with association from many observations — simply does not match the structure of this argument.

   2%
5. E

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   uses evidence drawn from a source whose reliability cannot readily

   The argument does not rely on evidence from a source whose reliability is questionable. It simply states a factual claim about rainfall in the previous two years. There is no cited study, no unnamed expert, no secondhand report — just a direct observation about how much rain fell. The argument's problem has nothing to do with the trustworthiness of its evidence source and everything to do with the quantity of evidence. Even if the two-year rainfall data were obtained from the most reliable meteorological instruments on Earth, two years would still be too few data points to support a weather prediction. This answer raises a concern about evidence reliability that is simply not at issue in the argument.

   1%