Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the eight large craters in a long straight line were probably caused by volcanic events rather than meteorites. This is because the craters contain rocks that show characteristics that could have been caused by volcanic events, and the linearity of the craters make it unlikely that the craters had different causes. In addition, the craters are all of different ages.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that craters in a straight line that are all of different ages are unlikely to be caused by meteorites slamming into earth. The author assumes that it is possible for volcanic events to produce craters in a straight line that are all of different ages. Another assumption is that there isn’t another more likely cause of the craters besides volcanic activity and meteorites.
A
A similar but shorter line of craters that are all the same age is known to have been caused by volcanic activity.
The craters we’re trying to explain are all of different ages. Evidence that volcanic activity can produce craters of the same age has no impact.
B
No known natural cause would likely account for eight meteorite craters of different ages forming a straight line.
In theory, meteorites could have hit Earth over a long time and left craters, but something covered up or removed some craters such that what’s left appears to be a straight line of craters. (B) strengthens the argument by eliminating this possibility.
C
There is no independent evidence of either meteorites or volcanic activity in the region where the craters are located.
If anything, this might weaken by suggesting the cause of the craters might be something besides volcanic activity.
D
There is no independent evidence of a volcanic event strong enough to have created the high-pressure shocks that are characteristic of meteorites slamming into Earth.
If anything, this might weaken by suggesting the cause of the craters might be something besides volcanic activity.
E
No known single meteor shower has created exactly eight impact craters that form a straight line.
The craters were all different ages, which already strongly suggests that the craters were not caused by a single meteor shower. So, (E) has no impact. The possibility we really want to eliminate is that they were created by multiple meteor showers over time.
Summary
The author concludes that creative geniuses tend to make people angry, and supports this with a series of conditional statements: because creative geniuses are anti-conformists, anti-conformists seek out controversy, and controversy seekers like to point out when people are wrong.
Missing Connection
The conclusion talks about making people angry, but we don’t discuss that anywhere in the premises. We were given a conditional chain that begins with creative geniuses and ends at demonstrating falsehood. We can make the argument valid if we assume that pointing out when popular beliefs are false is something that angers the majority.
A
People become angry when they are dissatisfied with merely habitual assent to widely held beliefs.
This answer choice would mean that creative geniuses are angry. We need to conclude that they make other people angry.
B
People who enjoy demonstrating the falsehood of popular viewpoints anger the majority.
This is a direct link from something that we know is a quality of creative geniuses (they enjoy demonstrating falsehood) to angering the majority.
C
People tend to get angry with individuals who hold beliefs not held by a majority of people.
We can’t assume that creative geniuses don’t have popular beliefs. We know that they don’t like habitual assent to popular belief: they don’t like it when people conform without thought. It’s possible that a creative genius would find a popular belief acceptable, given thought.
D
People who anger the majority enjoy demonstrating the falsehood of popular viewpoints.
This is switching sufficient and necessary condition. We need something that supports a conclusion about angering the majority. This supports a conclusion about demonstrating falsehood.
E
People who anger the majority are dissatisfied with merely habitual assent to widely held beliefs.
Similar to (D), this answer choice switches sufficient and necessary conditions. This supports a conclusion about having dissatisfaction with auto-conformity, or about not angering the majority. We need to support a conclusion about angering the majority.