Explanation
This is a flawed pattern of reasoning question that asks us to recreate the flaw using a different subject. Here, the flaw is a named one, “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” Wise advice when picking a mutual fund and applicable here as well. The fact that in the past earthquakes have been preceded by tremors, does not mean that in the future an earthquake will strike the region because there have been tremors.
A slightly alternate interpretation, we have a converse-type flaw. The fact that an earthquake is frequently preceded by tremors, does not mean that tremors are frequently followed by earthquakes. Perhaps there are tremors very frequently, eventually these tremors would have to precede an earthquake, even if those earthquakes are infrequent.
A. This is closer to the inverse. A hurricane (earthquake) has been preceded by tropical storm (tremors). Since the response uses the lack of storm to show lack of hurricane it is a different type of flaw than the original.
B. Very close, however this option...
...has a much more direct causal link. The snow is clearly causing the river to overflow, where it’s less clear that the tremors are causing the earthquakes.
...refers to a different type of temporal relationship. The original states that each earthquake has been preceded by a tremor, whereas B states that at a specific time the river either overflows or doesn’t based on the snowfall.
...doesn’t match the converse flaw in the original. Earthquake >> Tremors therefore Tremors >> Earthquake is not equal to Snowfall >> Flooding therefore Snowfall >> Flooding
...is probably how it was written to be solved, although a critique would be that the question is not phrased in a way that creates a sufficient/necessary condition, just a pattern of what occurs before and after.
C. Since this response limits the scope of the condition to planets other than Earth, we cannot make this leap to Earth. But, it’s not a "past results = future performance" flaw, it’s a "other planets = Earth" flaw. A difference of type, not time.
D. This is not flawed, it sets up a condition and meets that condition. There will, necessarily, be extinction. We are looking for a response that is flawed in the same way as the original.
E. (Correct Response) This answer replicates the flawed argument: Outbreaks among humans (earthquakes) are preceded by outbreaks among wildlife (tremors) and then predicts that because the outbreak among wildlife has been detected, the outbreak among humans is imminent. This is the converse, it reverses without negating and creates the error.