Q19: According to some astronomers, Earth is struck

LR Question 19 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: We should fund research into finding a way to protect Earth from catastrophic meteorite strikes.

REASONING: We’re due for a big meteorite strike soon.

ANALYSIS: The author is recommending funding research based on a prediction that a big meteorite strike should happen soon.

But let’s look at how they arrive at that prediction.

Imagine that, on average, I roll a 6 on a dice once every six rolls. If I haven’t rolled a 6 in six rolls, am I now “due” for one? No.

The author’s committing a version of what’s called the gambler’s fallacy. It incorrectly assumes that random processes have a memory.

But average intervals don’t justify specific predictions about the timing of the next occurrence.

So the problem isn’t really the recommendation. The problem is that the prediction used to support the recommendation is weak.

___________

This actually gives the author too much credit. The evidence doesn’t establish a high probability of a near-future strike. That’s the issue – the author hasn’t successfully shown the event is likely soon.
This is saying that the author is assuming the probability is not affected by past non-occurrence. That’s the opposite of what the author is doing: they’re effectively treating the meteorite strike as more likely now because it hasn’t happened recently.
CORRECT. The jump from an average rate to a prediction about the next occurrence is exactly the issue. The evidence says: once every 100 million years on average, and the conclusion jumps to: therefore one should occur soon.
The stimulus already tells us we’re talking about meteorites large enough to cause an ice age. The argument takes that as given.
The conclusion is only that we should fund research to determine whether such a means exists. You don’t have to assume a solution already exists in order to justify researching one.