reasoning question

tequilawine
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:11 pm

reasoning question

Postby tequilawine » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:38 pm

Need some help again.
John of Worcester, an english monk, recorded the sighting, on December 8, 1128, of two unusually large sunspots. Five days later a brilliant aurora borealis (northern lights ) was observed in southern Korea. Sunspot activity is typically followed by the apprearance of an aurora borealis, after a span of time that averages five days. Thus, the Korean sighting helps to confirm John of Worcester's sighting.

Which one of the following, if trre, most strengthens the argument?
C Only heavey sunspot activity could have resulted in an aurora borealis viewable at a latitude as low as that of Korea.
E John of Worcester's account included a drawing of the sunspots, which could be the earliest illustration of sunspot activity.

The right answer is C. but I wanna know the reason why E doesn't work.

Thank you.

trvr
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:40 pm

Re: reasoning question

Postby trvr » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:54 pm

Hey again,

Conclusion: John's sighting is further confirmed by the observance of the aurora in Korea

Support: Sunspot activity is typically followed by the appearance of the aurora five days later

TCR must strengthen the connection between the support and the conclusion.

Choice E: John's account included a drawing of the sunspots - this does not strengthen the argument that the Korean observation of the aurora helped to confirm that John observed the sunspots.

tequilawine
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:11 pm

Re: reasoning question

Postby tequilawine » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:47 pm

so heavey sunspot activity reaffirmed the connection between these two activities?

User avatar
rinkrat19
Posts: 13918
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:35 am

Re: reasoning question

Postby rinkrat19 » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:00 pm

Answer C suggests that there are no other events besides sunspots that are typically followed by aurora borealis of the kind seen in Korea. (For instance, earthquakes or volcanoes or the winter solstice or whatever.) So if there was an aurora sighting in Korea, it is more likely that there really was a sunspot five days earlier.

Answer E doesn't have anything to do with the relationship between sunspots and aurora borealis. Who cares if John drew a picture or just told someone about it or wrote down a description?

trvr
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:40 pm

Re: reasoning question

Postby trvr » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:29 pm

tequilawine wrote:so heavey sunspot activity reaffirmed the connection between these two activities?


No, heavy sunspot activity in and of itself did not reaffirm the connection. What reaffirms the connection is the statement that only heavy sunspot activity (and nothing else) could have resulted in the aurora being visible in Korea.

rinkrat19 wrote:Answer C suggests that there are no other events besides sunspots that are typically followed by aurora borealis of the kind seen in Korea. (For instance, earthquakes or volcanoes or the winter solstice or whatever.) So if there was an aurora sighting in Korea, it is more likely that there really was a sunspot five days earlier.

Answer E doesn't have anything to do with the relationship between sunspots and aurora borealis. Who cares if John drew a picture or just told someone about it or wrote down a description?

tequilawine
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:11 pm

Re: reasoning question

Postby tequilawine » Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:16 am

thank you guys :lol:




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests