I was hoping you guys could help me understand this question. I originally had it down to A and B but chose A for the following reason. On lines 11-14 the passage says that Radiocarbon dating is able to provide hints about the likelihood and location of future earthquakes. Also, isn't Lichenometry by its own design unable to predict future earthquakes as it measures growth rates of lichen (which doesn't start growing until after the earthquakes)? Wouldn't this mean since Radiocarbon dating is able to help predict future earthquakes and Lichenometry is not that Radiocarbon does it better? Any help would be appreciated!
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 2183
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm
We don't know how "accurate" radio carbon dating is in predicting future earthquakes; we just know that the data can provide hints about the likelihood of future earthquakes. However, we're not told anywhere in the passage about the success rate of these predictions. Also, lichenometry isn't used to predict future earthquakes so we can't speak to its accuracy.
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:19 pm
Yeah, you're assuming that lichenometry doesn't yield data that can't also be used to "provide hints" about future earthquakes. We aren't told anything about lichenometry's predictive qualities, so saying that it has none is not a supportable inference.