RC Question 4 Explanation
DISCUSSION: The right answer will have a line supporting it. If you can’t find the line, you probably don’t have the right answer.
You can quickly find lines if you know the structure of the passage. Always try to know roughly what information each paragraph has.
___________
- The passage does mention that radiocarbon dating could predict future earthquakes, on lines 11-14. But it never says lichenometry can predict earthquakes.
- CORRECT. Paragraph 1 says radiocarbon dating is used to date samples from trenches along visible fault lines (line 3). So it’s unlikely radiocarbon dating is useful if there are no fault lines.
- The passage never said “these are the only two methods”. There could be others.
- We have no idea. We know radiocarbon dating is not good for 300 years ago (lines 45-48) and lichenometry is not useful for more than 500 years ago (line 54). But 400 years ago? We have no idea. This answer is just trying to confuse you by throwing in a random date we know nothing about.
- Lines 54-58 say we can correct for factors that change lichen growth rates. This answer contradicts the passage. Presumably, factors affecting growth rate are not a deal-breaker.
Hi Blake,
In my opinion option E do make sense.
E. The usefulness of lichenometry for dating earthquakes is limited to geographic regions where factors that disturb or accelerate lichen growth generally do not occur.
Passage explicitly mentions – “Sites must be
selected to minimize the influence of snow avalanches
and other disturbances that would affect normal lichen
growth, and conditions like shade and wind that
promote faster lichen growth must be factored in.”
it implies that lichenometry wouldn’t work in sites influenced by avalanches and other disturbances, restricting it’s usefulness. Something that E says.
Can you please help with this.
Thanks
The issue with (E) is that it makes too general a claim. Rockfalls, one of the central points of examination in Bull and Brandon’s method, are a factor that disturb and accelerate lichen growth. The passage definitely doesn’t support the contention that the usefulness of lichenometry is limited to regions where rockfalls don’t occur, since its central argument is about the effectiveness of lichenometry for showing the location and frequency of past earthquakes in exactly these areas.
Thanks a lot Lucas !
I get my mistake,which was indeed a huge one.
for A, it sorta does imply prediction. Lines 11-14. I think the problem with a is that you cannot find anywhere about Lichenometry being accurate with predictions. In fact, it never mentions using the new method to predict future earthquakes, just dating them
You’re right, I completely missed lines 11-14. Thanks, I just edited this. You’re also right about why the answer ultimately isn’t right – lichenometry is never mentioned as being useful for predictions.