This type of question is a weakening question.

So the question stem is asking us to consider this argument here,

and then we're trying to weaken this argument.

So whatever the premises we have that supports the conclusion,

we're trying to find an answer choice that gets into that space

between the premises and the conclusion.

In other words, try to show how the premises sort of allow

for different conclusions to be drawn.

So let's read what the scientist has to say.

0.5 degrees Celsius over the last century.

So that's just over the last century.

On average, each year, the temperature has been going up

by 0.5 degrees Celsius.

So this warming is referential phrasing referring to this 0.5 degrees

per year, annual per year increase.

They're saying this warming is attributable, is primarily the result of,

is caused by, in other words, the buildup of minor gases in the atmosphere

blocking the outward flow of heat from the planet.

So this is what we call the conclusion.

This is the premise.

If this is not clear to you, you should review the lesson

on premise conclusions.

So this argument here also utilizes what we call a hypothesis,

a phenomenon to hypothesis framework, the science framework of having

identified some sort of phenomenon that's occurred.

And then we're coming up with a hypothesis or explanation

of this phenomenon.

Why is it that the temperature has, on average, gone up

by 0.5 degrees Celsius?

Well, here's the explanation.

Here's our hypothesis.

Here's the conclusion.

And it's because of the buildup of minor gases blocking the outward flow

of heat from the planet.

Well, as with all phenomenon hypothesis questions, causation,

in other words, causation questions, this may not be the only explanation.

There could be plenty of other explanations.

But we are trying to weaken this argument.

In other words, we're trying to get in between the space of this

premise conclusion or if you want to consider phenomenon hypothesis.

We're trying to get in between that space.

We're saying, despite the fact that the premise or phenomenon

could be true, is the case, this is nevertheless not the explanation,

not the conclusion we draw from it.

So let's see which one of the answer choices helps us do that.

now this word whose introduces a embedded clause, a modifier.

We're going to be filling in the details on what about these minor gases,

some of the minor gases.

What minor gases?

These minor gases, the ones whose presence in atmosphere allegedly resulted

in the phenomenon described by the scientists.

That's what type of gases we're talking about.

That's all that does.

It just modifies this.

What we do with this is we don't read it first.

From that grammar lesson, we don't read this first.

Only some of the minor gases predicate verb were produced

by industrial pollution.

And then this gas, of course, they're just talking about this gas.

That's all it is.

It's just referential phrasing, this gas.

So what if some of these gases were produced by industrial pollution?

What if all of them were produced by industrial pollution?

Does that matter?

We're trying to weaken the idea that this is the correct hypothesis.

We're trying to weaken the idea that this phenomenon,

these premises give support to this.

This tells us that these gases that you're alleging is responsible

for the temperature increase, they came from this source.

They came from a power plant or they came from a manufacturing plant.

What does that matter?

If anything, that makes me think that maybe it is the gases

because I've heard a lot of stuff about power plants

and manufacturing plants polluting the atmosphere

and causing global warming.

I don't see how that weakens my argument in any way,

or this argument, rather, in any way.

It just doesn't matter where these gases come from.

And besides, they're only telling us about some,

only some of the gases came from here.

So there is another source of this gas

and we have no idea what this other source is.

So again, it just really doesn't get into the space

between the premise and the conclusion.

It doesn't help us weaken this argument.

while most of the buildup of minor gases in the atmosphere

occurred after 1940.

Now think about this answer choice.

They're saying most of this warming, most of it meaning,

see, we were reported 0.5 degrees Celsius.

It's not like every year it went up,

the temperature went up by 0.5 degrees

because this is an average, an average.

So they're telling us now that, oh, actually what happened

was the increase happened a lot before 1940

and then it just didn't, it kind of just sort of

flattened out after 1940.

But then, but then look, but if the warming happened

before 1940, you would expect that the supposed cause

of the warming to already have been present,

but it's not present.

They're saying most of the buildup of minor gases

occurred after 1940.

Okay, so how, then, then you see, in that case,

it makes me highly skeptical that this is

the correct explanation.

Because were this the correct explanation,

I wouldn't expect this to occur.

You know, we are asked to suppose that this is true.

If we suppose this is true, then it seems less likely

this is the explanation.

Again, because the warming, most of the warming

took place before, before the cause was even present,

the putative cause, the supposed cause, right,

the cause that they're arguing for.

But that wasn't even there when most of the warming

took place.

You see, that's why B is the correct weakening

answer choice.

In fact, this is one of the common, common templates

that the LSAT uses for a correct answer choice

and a weakening question, which is to introduce

some fact to you that implies that the cause

was not present when the alleged effect took place.

So if that's the case, then it can't be, it can't be,

the, the, you know, it can't be the causal framework

that they're suggesting.

slightly more solar radiation in certain years

than it did in other years.

Okay, I mean, that's totally fine.

It just doesn't do anything.

Think about what it's saying.

Over the last century, over the last hundred years,

that's what we're talking about.

Earth received slightly more solar radiation

in some years than it did in others.

Others referring to other years.

See, what C is designed to do is try to get you

to think that over the last century, Earth received

more solar radiation as compared to other centuries.

But if you thought others referred to centuries,

then you made a grammar error.

This others refers to years, right?

See, it's all within, see, if you,

because if you think others refers to centuries,

then you would rightly choose C,

because then what C is doing is C is saying,

oh, it's not really this minor gases.

It's potentially, the explanation for this

is potentially that we're just getting more sun rays.

We're getting more sun radiation, solar radiation.

That's what makes the planet hotter.

And what you can see would not,

what would be a really good answer choice

is introducing an alternative hypothesis

that explains the phenomenon,

which is also a template that the LSAT uses,

except that this answer choice C isn't actually doing that

because the others is referring to years,

which means that, see, like all this says

is that within the last 100 years,

if this were the last 100 years,

you know, maybe this year was hotter than this year,

and this year, or rather not hotter,

this year received more solar radiation than this year.

This one received more than this year.

This one received more than this year,

so on and so forth.

In other words, just that it's not a flat line

of how much solar radiation was received

across the last 100 years.

And of course, we'd expect some years

to receive more solar radiation than other years.

That's why C doesn't work.

D says volcanic dust and other particles in the atmosphere

reflect much of the sun's radiation back into space

before it can reach Earth's surface.

because what D is saying is that

there's other stuff here, volcanic dust, particles.

And what is it doing here?

It's reflecting the sun's rays back into space.

Okay, now if we reflect the sun's rays back into space,

what do you think that does?

Does it have a cooling effect, a chilling effect,

or does it have a warming effect on the Earth?

Well, if you're reflecting the sun's radiation back into space,

I think you would be having a chilling effect on the Earth.

And that's not what we're looking for.

How does it help that we identify something

that has a chilling effect on the Earth?

Because what we know is that the Earth's temperature

has been going up by 0.5 degrees Celsius anyway.

You see, D is attractive because D is trying to make you think,

oh, maybe this whole thing didn't happen.

But it did happen.

All you can say, I mean, they told us,

this is a phenomenon that's identified.

The temperature has increased by 0.5 degrees Celsius.

It happened, despite this chilling effect having happened.

With answer choice D being true,

it just means that there's a chilling effect,

yet the temperature went up anyway.

Which means without this chilling effect,

this temperature would have went up a lot more.

But how does that help with what explanation is right?

It doesn't. It doesn't help with what explanation is right.

And it certainly doesn't help us discount this

as the correct explanation.

That's why D also doesn't work.

It just does nothing to the argument.

that says the accumulation of minor gases in the atmosphere

has been greater over the last century

than at any other time in the Earth's history.

OK, E is a very attractive answer choice.

It is also wrong.

The reason it's attractive is because they're telling you that,

see, we are suggesting that it's built on minor gases.

And if this were the correct explanation,

you'd expect there to be a lot of minor gases built up.

Because if it's just a little bit of minor gases built up,

you'd expect it not to actually have this effect

of blocking our flow.

So E is playing off of that.

E is saying, thinking to itself,

well, when the test writers write this question,

they're thinking, OK, students who already accept this

as the correct hypothesis,

as the correct explanation for this phenomenon,

they will be likely to pick E.

Why? Because E is telling you,

E is basically reinforcing this.

E is saying, if this were the right explanation,

yeah, there were a lot of minor gases built up.

The accumulation over the last century

has been greater than at any other time.

So over the last 100 years,

there's been a ton of buildup of minor gases.

But that still doesn't say that this is...

Does this even strengthen the argument?

It doesn't strengthen the argument

because it could still be some other cause.

And it certainly doesn't weaken the argument

because it doesn't introduce to you

the idea that it's not this explanation.

And that's what we're trying to do.

We're trying to figure out things

that suggest to us that this hypothesis

potentially is in error.

It's not this hypothesis, not this explanation.

So that's why E doesn't really work.

If anything, it strengthens,

but it actually doesn't even strengthen this argument.