A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d

It is given that that it is probable,but nothing is mentioned about what happened actually.Highlighed the portion that maybe useful to arrive at D.

Imo D


The the conclusion is based upon consequences of some probable event. So to undermine the this argument we have to show that the probable event did not occur or some other event occurred.
D questions that the there not certainty that such an even might have occurred and thus this choice undermine the contention.

In my opinion B ,
A says contemporary( present time) evidence ...doesn't make much sense here

B for me as well. Author is mixing between cause and effect.

Here two incidents are given..
1. Unusual violence in five years...
2. In same five year, weather pattern disturbance.

Conclusion.
1 leads to 2

B correctly address the concern in stimulus as author has not clearly mentioned cause and effect. These two events can be correlated.

IMO D.

The author says that the consumption of the infected grain CAN cause ergotism, but did it really cause and if it did then what proportion of the population was effected-no information is given on these points. Hence, in the absence of the said information, one can only conclude that the consumption of the infected grain MIGHT have been the reason for violence.

Please help me understand difference b/w options A and D?

(A)Author's assumption is based on "plausible suppositions" rather than "contemporary evidence".
(D)The author assumption makes no distinction between "probable occurrence" and "actual occurrence".
How is "not giving actual occurrence" diff. from "not having actual evidence"??

If you see (A) says the assumption should be made on contemporary evidence i.e., evidence from the current period.
(D) on the other hand says the assumption should have been based on the actual occurrence which the author doesn't talk about.

(A) is wrong for that reason.Hope its clear.

As per google "contemporary" is an adjective. Meaning :
1.living or occurring at the same time.
2. belonging to or occurring in the present.
Example: "the event was recorded by a contemporary historian"
Accordingly, A states "Author's assumption is based on plausible suppositions rather than evidences of past (when the event occured) time." Is my understand for use of "contemporary" incorrect. Please Help.

Hello Bunuel,

How can we eliminate option B.
As per my understanding there is no clear cut relation mentioned for cause and effect.
So, if someone argues on the point, then the conclusion falls apart.

Please explain why it is not B.
Here two correlated events are mentioned in same time duration. I agree that D is equally correct but not getting why B is incorrect.

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

This passage tells a story similar to the anonymous fable of the poison grain, in which all of a kingdom's grain crop is mysteriously poisoned, causing anyone who ate it to go insane. The author describes a wave of unusual violence that swept over a medieval town for a period of five years, characterized by acts ranging from self-destruction to murder. That's followed by a description of a chain of events, beginning with an unusual shift in weather patterns that coincided with the violent period. Due to unusually heavy rainfall, the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus, which can cause ergotism, a disease characterized by hallucinations and other psychological abnormalities. The author then concludes that the violence was caused by ("was the result of") the freakish weather conditions. There's the element of causation alluded to above.

An 800 test taker recognizes causation in all of the various ways in which it is suggested by the wording of arguments.

When presented with a causal argument—especially when looking for a rebuttal that argument— the first thing to do is check to see that the causal mechanism described is appropriate. The author blames the unusual acts of violence in the town on ergot fungus. However, he doesn't know for a fact that the ergot fungus was present in the town's wheat. He knows conditions were ripe for the formation of the fungus (i.e., lots of rain), and he knows fungus-infected wheat can cause psychological disturbances—but the crucial point, the actual presence of the fungus, is mere supposition. (Note how the author says that the wheat crop "probably" fell prey to the fungus.) As (D) points out, the conclusion treats the probable occurrence of the fungus as if it were a certain, actual occurrence. And therein lies the scope shift as well; the author argues from probability in the evidence to a clear-cut, definite statement of actual causation in the conclusion. In arguing against this reasoning, it would be perfectly appropriate to point out that the author misses the distinction described in (D), the correct answer.

(A) Contrary to (A), the argument does use contemporary evidence: the shift in the area's weather patterns at the time of the incidents of violence.

(B) Actually, the author does set up a clear chain of cause and effect—rain causes fungus which causes psychological abnormality. The causes and effects are perfectly distinct; the question is whether the causal mechanism described is valid.

(С) distorts the argument, since no role at all is assigned to the chance or irrational in causing the psychological disturbances.

(E) The term "unusual violence" is reasonably well defined as involving acts of murder and self-destruction so pervasive as to endanger the town's very survival. We really can't ask for a more comprehensive definition than that.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.