Philosophy argument construction?

[coxy22]

Given the following information and by constructing an argument of analogy with the appropriate form what can you conclude about the extinction of dinosaurs?

An exhaustive study of known mass extinctions reveals that they occur in roughly 12 million year cycles. there are four researched mass extinctions that occurred outside of the cycle and the explanation for each of these is that there was some sort of cataclysmic event. The mass extinction of the dinosaurs also falls outside the 26 million year cycle.

[Doctor Y]

You are asking for a conclusion. So let's line up the premises.

- Most mass extinctions occur in roughly 12 million year cycles.
- Every mass extinction that we know about so far that has not fit into the regular cycle was caused by a cataclysmic event.
- The mass extinction of the dinosaurs does not fall in the regular patter of cycles.

The conclusion can only be: The mass extinction of the dinosaurs was probably caused by a cataclysmic event.

Because the premises include words like 'so far' and 'most', the conclusion is not a logically sound one. But it is a strong argument if not logically certain.

[Yaoi Shonen-ai]

I have no doubt it could be true. I also had no doubt that men could at least make the ecosystem better, whether they ruined it or not--stop the blame game, and fix it.
But in the last year the temp. at the 4 World weather stations had proved to have risen, enough to offset all the rising of the last 100 years. They say if the solar eruptions don't begin soon, we will cool more. The eruptions are not on their cycle of 11 years.. What if it goes 22 years?
We will have lots more iceburgs!