The stimulus has the economists proposing an argument that buying lotteries tickets is dumb. Why? Because on average, you pay in way more than you take out.
The author argues that the economists are wrong. What's his argument?
He says that buying lottery tickets are analogous to buying insurance (tickets, if you will). How are they similar? Because on average, you pay in way more than you take out.
Okay, that's all well and good. Let's remember that this is an argument by analogy so we need to show where insurance isn't like the lottery.
What are you buying with insurance? You're paying more on average than you take out of it. So what are you buying? You're buying *insurance*. You're buying protection from risk, that if by some terrible stroke of misfortune, you should get hit by a car, you'll be financially covered.
What are you buying with lotteries? You're buying a chance to win some large amount of money.
Since we know that this is an argument by analogy, you have to point out where this argument isn't analogous. That's what (E) does. (E) tells that people value protection from risk way more than they value the chance to win a lot of cash. Well, if that's true, then the author's analogy doesn't work so well anymore.
(D) is the attractive answer choice. But it's wrong because (1) we don't care about the "grand" prize and (2) simply knowing odds doesn't matter much - we also have to know the amount to be weighed against those odds.
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".
This question is difficult because of the obscuring of the premises and conclusion. Here's the premises and conclusion distilled, utilizing the skills we learned in our grammar lessons.
published --> prof. N promise to urge dean to promote S --> prof. N urge dean to promote S --> S promoted
_____________
import & well written --> S promoted
Reducing it, the argument goes:
published --> S promoted
_____________
import & well written --> S promoted
Formulaically, we want to supply the missing premise: import & well written --> published
But, the LSAC did something new this time. They gave us: import --> published
That actually works!
To see why, let's think about an analogous argument.
If you buy milk, then you will use cash. Therefore, if you go to store & gas station, you will use cash.
Formulaically, we want to supply the missing premise: if you go to store & gas station, you will buy milk. But, doesn't that feel a little redundant? What if I just said "if you go to store, you will buy milk."
That also allows us to validly draw the conclusion that "if you go to store & gas station, you will use cash."
In fact, it'll even allow us to validly draw the conclusion that "if you go to store & gas station & mars & russia, you will use cash."
Very clever, those LSAT writers