Scientist: While studying fossil records for ancient mammal species, I unexpectedly discovered that one million years ago the amount of flora covering what is now Canada was much lower than it is today. Clearly the climate must have been significantly different then to explain such a large difference in flora.
The reasoning in the scientist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
A)Presumes, without providing justification, that the prevalence of species of mammals and flora are related.
B)Makes an inference without enough evidence to support the claim.
C)Draws a general conclusion from an unrepresentative sample.
D)Takes for granted that the method used for gathering the data was reliable.
E)Inappropriately uses a general observation to make a specific claim.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The reasoning in the scientist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism because it makes an inference without enough evidence to support the claim. While it could be true that the climate was different, the scientist does not establish how climate difference alone would account for the lack of flora, and doesn't explain why the difference could not have been due to other factors.

Scientist: While Studying Fossil Records for Ancient Mammal Species, I