LSAT 131 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 04

December 2009

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:43

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT131 S2 Q04
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
0%
150
B
1%
154
C
2%
154
D
0%
153
E
97%
164
125
133
141
 +Easiest 147.936 +SubsectionMedium

Scientist: While studying centuries-old Antarctic ice deposits, I found that several years of relatively severe atmospheric pollution in the 1500s coincided with a period of relatively high global temperatures. So it is clear in this case that atmospheric pollution did cause global temperatures to rise.

Summarize Argument
The scientist concludes that atmospheric pollution caused global temperatures to rise in the 1500s. She supports this by saying that she found several years of heavy pollution in the 1500s that coincided with a period of high global temperatures.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The scientist points out a correlation between atmospheric pollution and high global temperatures in the 1500s and then concludes that the pollution caused the high temperatures. She ignores any other possible explanation for the high temperatures.

A
presumes, without providing justification, that a rise in global temperatures is harmful
The scientist never makes this assumption. She concludes that pollution caused the rise in global temperatures, but she doesn’t assume that the rise in temperatures is harmful.
B
draws a general conclusion based on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative
Like (C), the scientist doesn’t draw a general conclusion. She draws the specific conclusion that “in this case” pollution caused high global temperatures.
C
inappropriately generalizes from facts about a specific period of time to a universal claim
Like (B), the scientist doesn’t draw an inappropriately general conclusion. She draws a specific conclusion about a period of time in the 1500s based on facts about that same specific period of time.
D
takes for granted that the method used for gathering data was reliable
This doesn’t describe why the scientist’s reasoning is vulnerable to criticism. She presents her data in her premises and we have no reason to believe that her methods were unreliable.
E
infers, merely from a claim that two phenomena are associated, that one phenomenon causes the other
The scientist infers that atmospheric pollution caused a rise in global temperatures in the 1500s merely from a claim that atmospheric pollution and high global temperatures both occurred during that time.

The question stem reads: The reasoning in the scientist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.

The scientist claims to have discovered that several years of atmospheric pollution during the 1500s coincided with a period of relatively high global temperatures. The scientist concludes, in this case (the period during the 1500s), that atmospheric pollution caused the global temperature to rise.

Right off the bat, we can see that the scientist has taken a correlation to mean causation. Sure atmospheric pollution coincided with higher global temperature, but perhaps the higher global temperature caused the pollution. Perhaps both were derivative effects of the same cause! As a scientist, they really should know better.

Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. The scientist has nothing to say about whether or not rising global temperatures are harmful.

Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. The scientist has not drawn a general rule. He says that atmospheric pollution caused global temperatures to rise in this case. Even if the scientist drew a general rule, we wouldn’t know whether the 1500s were likely or unlikely to be representative.

Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. (C) is very similar to (B). We can rule (C) out because the scientist did not draw a general rule.

Answer choice (D) is incorrect. Sure, we have to assume that the data methods are reliable, but that is not a flaw in reasoning.

Correct Answer Choice (E) is what we discussed. The author has assumed that the correlation between atmospheric pollution and the rising global temperature of the 1500s implies that atmospheric pollution caused the temperatures to rise.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply