The correct answer is (E).
(E) Role of a Statement
Step 1: Identify the Question Type
The question cites a claim from the stimulus and asks for its "role in the philosopher's reasoning," making this a Role of a Statement question. Start by finding the cited claim. Then break down the argument into conclusion and evidence, using Keywords and context to note where the cited claim fits into the argument.
Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
The cited claim is the first sentence, namely that social scientists need data about several societies in order to explain the cause of cultural phenomena. The colon indicates that the next piece will explain what was just said. What follows is a specific example to support this claim: One needs several pieces of information to say that certain climatic or ecological factors caused a particular political structure. First, one must make sure no societies without those climatic or ecological factors have that same political structure. Second, one must make sure that the reverse is also true: no societies with the climatic or ecological factors have a different political structure.
Step 3: Make a Prediction
The initial claim (the claim in question) is the philosopher's main point. From there, the philosopherÑrightly hesitant about causal argumentsÑexplains how social scientists can solidify a causal relationship: Make sure the cause always produces the expected results, and make sure the result is always brought about by the expected cause. The correct answer will identify the claim as a conclusion and likely will mention how the philosopher backs it up with an example of how to establish causality.
Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices
(E) is a perfect match. It identifies the statement in the question stem as a claim the author tries to justify (i.e., the conclusion), and it correctly recognizes the evidence as setting out the requirements for establishing a causal relationship.
(A) immediately falters because the philosopher doesn't address any "problem" with social scientists' need for certainty. Indeed, he seems to be providing helpful guidance for how to achieve relative certainty.
(B) reverses the argument. The cited claim is the general theoretical ideaÑto explain causality, one needs comparative dataÑwhile the rest of the argument contains the support.
(C) starts off perfectly, identifying the opening claim as a general hypothesis. However, the example provided doesn't actually show a causal relationship; it shows what social scientists need in order to establish or to disprove a causal relationship.
(D) contains multiple Distortions. The philosopher doesn't present the initial claim as a "dilemma." Furthermore, while the data needed certainly seems involved, the philosopher never goes so far as to say that a phenomenon's status as cause or effect is "difficult" to determine.
