The passage tells us that high atmospheric winds off the western coast of Africa trigger hurricanes that threaten the US. This is a causal relationship in which winds are the cause and hurricanes are the effect. The passage then says that when there is abundant rain in sub-Saharan Africa, hurricanes tend to hit the US frequently. This is a correlational statement- we do not know if one phenomena causes the other, just that they tend to occur together. Finally, the passage comes to the conclusion that abundant rains promote the ability of winds to form hurricanes. This is a flawed conclusion because it incorrectly jumps from correlation to causation in assuming that the rain causes the winds.
Answer choice (E) says that events in Eastern Europe can affect the mood in Central America. Note that this is a causal relationship in which events in Eastern Europe are the cause and the mood in Central America is the effect. However, we are not told specifically how the mood is affected. The answer choice goes on to falsely conclude that liberalization in Eastern Europe will cause liberalization in Central America. This is flawed reasoning not because it makes a correlation/causation flaw like the passage (here we know that events in Eastern Europe cause an effect in the mood in Central America, so the two are not merely correlated), but because it assumes that the events in Eastern Europe will cause the same exact events to occur in Central America. There is no support for this- we are only told that the mood will be affected, and we don't know how this effect will look. Therefore, (E) uses different flawed logic than the passage does.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
