Question 10

Explanation

To answer this question correctly, we need to dissect the cause-and-effect logical structure in the text. Let's define the premises:

• $P$: Rain intensity in Arabia increases extremely.
• $Q$: Floods occur.
• $R$: Green vegetation appears in the Arabian region.

Analyzing the Logical Flow

Based on the text, the sequence of events is:

1. Extreme rain ($P$) causes floods ($Q$).
2. Floods ($Q$) cause the appearance of green vegetation ($R$).

Mathematically, this can be written as a chain implication:

This means: "If rain intensity increases extremely (P), then green vegetation will appear (R)."

Testing the Question

The question asks what happens if rain intensity does NOT increase extremely ($\sim P$).

In formal logic, if we have the premise $P \rightarrow R$ and the condition $\sim P$ (negation of the antecedent), we CANNOT conclude $\sim R$ (negation of the consequent). This is known as the logical fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.

Why? Because the text only tells us what happens if there is extreme rain. The text does not state that extreme rain is the only cause of green vegetation. It is possible that other factors (like artificial irrigation) could cause vegetation to appear even without extreme rain.

Therefore, if $\sim P$ occurs, the status of $R$ (whether there is vegetation or not) becomes uncertain or unknown based on the available information.

Since we do not have information about what happens if the rain is not extreme, the answer is cannot be concluded.