LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 20

This question is very hard. It's hard because the information is presented to you in a mess, kind of like how Logic Games present information to you. I cleaned up the information a bit, starting from the first cause going through to the last effect. The LSAT writers, in their never ending quest to torment, presented the information backwards, of course.

Many scientists believe that air pollution causes global warming.

Many scientists believe that global warming enhanced the strength of the El Niño.

In 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought.

In 1997, widespread drought caused the tropics to be susceptible to fire.

In 1997, unusually large and intense forest fires swept the tropics.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Let's consider each answer choice.

(A)  Air pollution was largely responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997. Really? Come on. We don't even know if air pollution was even the slightest bit responsible, not to mention "largely" responsible.  The link between air pollution and El Niño owes to what "many scientists believe." Those scientists could just be wrong.

(B)  If the El Niño in 1997 had not been unusually strong, few if any large and intense forest fires would have swept the tropics in that year. I will not yell at you as loudly if you chose this answer choice. This one is tempting. We know that the strong El Niño was a causal component that contributed to the usually large and intense forest fires. But, that doesn't mean that if it wasn't present, the fires wouldn't have happened anyway. Who's to say what would have happened if the El Niño wasn't unusually strong? Maybe volcanos would have erupted setting the forests ablaze. Maybe a pyromanic on a scale never before known to the world would have run rampant through the forests of the tropics. Counterfactuals are notoriously speculative. So, MAYBE this will pass as a MSS answer choice, but definitely not an MBT answer choice.

(C)  Forest fires in the tropics are generally larger and more intense than usual during a strong El Niño. NOOOOOO! WROOOOONG! One instance in 1997 doesn't prove shit. You know what else happened in 1997? It became really popular for Hanson to make an mmmbop noise with their mouths over and over and over. Imagine if that meant that "song" would be generally popular going forward for all time...

(D)  At least some scientists believe that air pollution was responsible for the size and intensity of the forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997. Also very tempting and therefore forgivable if you chose this one. What do we know about what some scientists believe? Only that global warming, caused by air pollution, enhanced the strength of the El Niño. So they do believe that air pollution was responsible for the El Niño. Do they also believe "in 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought"? We don't know. Okay so there's a break in logic. But even if you argument that it's incredibly reasonable to assume that the particular scientist that we're talking about in this answer choice believes that "in 1997, an unusually strong El Niño caused widespread drought", it only gets us to the following: "that scientist believes that air pollution was responsible for the drought." Drought makes the forests susceptible to fire, but that's very different from being responsible for the fire.

(E)  If air pollution enhanced the strength of the El Niño in 1997, then it also contributed to the widespread drought in that year. This is just perfect. It takes the statement that some scientists believe and turns it into fact. Then it connects up the causal chain. It's even worded correctly saying "contributed" and not "was the single most important factor".