PT48.S4.Q17 - a large amount of rainfall

extramedium

Hi. Just having trouble distinguishing answer C from D in this question. I think D is wrong only because it is plural. Can someone please confirm? I think it's saying the same thing as the right answer (C) in a different way. Please explain if I am wrong.

D. Takes for granted that threat (increased encephalitis) that is aggravated by certain factors (rain) could not occur in the absence of those factors (rain.)

Takes for granted that increased encephalitis that is aggravated by rain could not occur without rain. IC can only occur with rain. No other factors.

C. Ignores the possibility that a certain type of outcome (increased encephalitis) is dependent on more than one factor (rain).

Ignores the possibility that other factors (that aren't rain) could contribute to IC. D says increased encephalitis could not occur without rain. No other factors seems to be established in both answer choices.

I don't really see much of a difference in the meaning here. Please tell me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-17/

GrecoRoman

D is describing a different flaw, which is why it is wrong. The argument of the stimulus is assuming there is only one cause for the increased encephalitis threat and hence ignoring that there may be other factors that can cause a rise in encephalitis, as C says. D is talking about a lack of factors and does not relate to the stimulus. For D to be right the argument would have to say something like "because there were no rains in April and May, there will not be an increased threat of encephalitis". Then it would be taking for granted that the lack of rain means there cannot be an increase in encephalitis threat.

nessa.k13.0

Hi @extramedium !

The stimulus presents a causation chain-- from a large amount of rainfall to an increase in the mosquito population to an increased threat of encephalitis. Then you are presented with a premise that establishes what people cannot do--_ people cannot change the weather_ and thus people cannot decrease the threat of encephalitis. An unstated assumption that must hold for this argument to be true is that changing the weather is the only way people can decrease the threat of encephalitis. C captures that assumption. D does not.

D is wrong because the flaw D describes would mean the flaw in the stimulus takes for granted that a threat (encephalitis) that is aggravated by certain factors (a large amount of rainfall and an increase in the mosquito population) could not occur in the absence of those factors (rainfall and increased mosquito population). The stimulus does present a situation (in the causation chain) where a threat is aggravated by certain factors (encephalitis is aggravated by an increasing mosquito population which is aggravated by a large amount of rainfall). Furthermore the stimulus does not take for granted that encephalitis could occur in the absence of a large amount of rainfall that leads to an increase in the mosquito population but rather presents the idea that the weather factor (rain) is the reason the threat (encephalitis) does occur.

TLDR: Essentially D is not correct because it is not descriptively accurate of the flaw in the stimulus.

I hope this helps!

rogersalexandra7

So I thought C wasn't the answer because I read the answer as saying that it ignores the possibility that a certain type of outcome is dependent on MORE than one factor but in the stimulus the only factor was the weather. I understood that the flaw was that there were other ways in which they could have decreased encephalitis. I thought if it had said it was dependent on ONE factor (weather) then that would be correct. Can someone explain the wording of C for me?? TYA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TheMikey

@rogersalexandra7 said:
So I thought C wasn't the answer because I read the answer as saying that it ignores the possibility that a certain type of outcome is dependent on MORE than one factor but in the stimulus the only factor was the weather. I understood that the flaw was that there were other ways in which they could have decreased encephalitis. I thought if it had said it was dependent on ONE factor (weather) then that would be correct. Can someone explain the wording of C for me?? TYA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, rainfall typically leads to mosquitos increasing and then that leads to an increase in encephalitis. the argument is saying that people cannot control rainfall, right? they are concluding that people cannot do anything to stop the encephalitis threat. WHY NOT THOUGH? there COULD BE some other way to stop encephalitis from screwing with you, rainfall doesn't have to be the only thing that does this to encephalitis. so just because changing one possibility (rainfall) is out of the picture, doesn't mean there isn't some other thing that can help you stop the threat of encephalitis.

so:
"ignores the possibility that a certain type of outcome is dependent on more than one factor" --> basically what this AC is saying is that the argument is not taking into consideration that there could be other factors that can decrease the threat.

a certain type of outcome (decease threat) is NOT restricted to just one factor (rainfall/weather), which is what answer choice C says in a different way.

rogersalexandra7

Thank you!!!! @TheMikey

TheMikey

@rogersalexandra7 said:
Thank you!!!! @TheMikey

no prob !