PrepTest 107, Section 1, Question 17
Columnist: It is impossible for there to be(54 more words not shown)
The argument's reasoning is most(10 more words not shown)
- AThe argument fails(16 more words not shown)
- BThe argument inappropriately(12 more words not shown)
- CThe argument inappropriately(18 more words not shown)
- DThe argument ignores(14 more words not shown)
- EThe argument concludes(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe we can't identify what caused one person's cancer. Does that make evidence about a whole population impossible? Imagine an unusually large increase in cancer among people living near a reactor. We could compare that pattern with other populations and consider other possible explanations. Those comparisons might tell us something even if we couldn't inspect one person's tumor and identify a single cause.
The columnist emphasizes how many possible causes an individual case could have: radiation, other toxins, smoking, diet, or genetics. That's a reason to be careful. But the conclusion goes much further. It says there cannot be real evidence that the old radiation standards contributed to increased cancer rates near the reactors.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question should point to that shift from individuals to populations. Uncertainty about each individual case doesn't rule out statistical evidence about a pattern. We don't have to prove the reactors contributed to cancer. We only need to show that the columnist hasn't ruled out evidence that they did.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Convincing statistical evidence can exist even when individual causes cannot be identified. Suppose a population near a reactor had a much higher cancer rate than otherwise comparable populations. We'd still need to examine alternative explanations, but that pattern could contribute evidence about radiation's role. The columnist treats uncertainty about individual cases as if it made this kind of evidence unavailable.
- B
The columnist doesn't argue that radiation must have caused cancer because the cancer followed it. The argument instead denies the possibility of evidence for radiation's contribution. Treating sequence as proof of causation describes a different argument moving toward a causal claim.
- C
No particular person's case is presented as a basis for a conclusion about the causes of cancer generally. The columnist speaks about the difficulty of determining the cause of any individual case. The error is ruling out population-level evidence on that basis, not using one described patient as a representative sample.
- D
Other possible causes are explicitly listed. The columnist uses them as the reason we allegedly cannot establish radiation's contribution. The problem is how much the argument concludes from the existence of alternatives, not a failure to notice that alternatives exist.
- E
Saying there can be no evidence for a connection isn't the same as saying the connection is false. The columnist does not conclude that radiation definitely had no effect. E changes a claim about what could be supported into a denial of the causal connection itself. That distinction matters even though the actual claim about evidence is also too strong.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.