On the basis of the available evidence, Antarctica has generally been thought to have been covered by ice for at least the past 14 million years. Recently, however, three-million-year-old fossils of a kind previously found only in ocean-floor sediments were discovered under the ice sheet covering central Antarctica. About three million years ago, therefore, the Antarctic ice sheet must temporarily have melted. After all, either severe climatic warming or volcanic activity in Antarctica’s mountains could have melted the ice sheet, thus raising sea levels and submerging the continent.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?
(A) That a given position is widely believed to be true is taken to show that the position in question must, in fact, be true.
(B) That either of two things could independently have produced a given effect is taken to show that those two things could not have operated in conjunction to produce that effect.
(C) Establishing that a certain event occurred is confused with having established the cause of that event.
(D) A claim that has a very general application is based entirely on evidence from a narrowly restricted range of cases.?
(E) An inconsistency that, as presented, has more than one possible resolution is treated as though only one resolution is possible.

SOURCE:SAME LSAT CR OCT 2001 SEC1.

was very confused..between e and d...thought c also but eliminated.please expalin how to eliminate the wrong ones.

i'll make this brief, because the gmat doesn't contain questions like this one.

this passage is jumping to a conclusion: just because the fossils are there, it concludes that the ice sheet must have melted - and treats that conclusion as fact (mostly because there are readily available explanations for it). that's the substance of choice e.

ya got it e it is...thanks...u r right..never saw these type of questions on gmat.....thks

You're welcome (on behalf of Ron).