PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 9
Phoebe: There have been many reported sightings of(81 more words not shown)
In responding to Phoebe,(1 more words not shown)
- Atakes a correlation(5 more words not shown)
- Bchallenges the accuracy(10 more words not shown)
- Ccriticizes Phoebe's explanation(2 more words not shown)
- Doffers an explanation(7 more words not shown)
- Eaccuses Phoebe of(3 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Phoebe sounds confident. Quincy wants to know whether the proposed explanation has actually been established.
At first, I also wonder about the other reported lights: explaining some sightings wouldn't explain every sighting. But Phoebe only claims to explain a number of them, so we shouldn't turn that limited claim into a claim about all the lights.
For those sightings, Phoebe points to a pattern in place and time: they clustered around earthquake epicenters. She takes that as strong support for earthquake lights. Quincy questions the next step. He says the underlying idea—that earthquake-related stresses can produce lightning—is highly speculative. The sightings and their timing could be real while her account of their cause remains unproven.
What we’re looking for
The question asks how Quincy responds. My prediction is that he questions the support for Phoebe's explanation. Keep that separate from denying the sightings, proving her theory false, or offering a new explanation of his own.
Working the answers
- A
Quincy is questioning a proposed causal connection, not making one. Phoebe moves from lights occurring near earthquakes to earthquakes explaining the lights. Quincy doubts whether that association establishes the cause. A describes the kind of leap he is challenging.
- B
Quincy doesn't say the lights weren't seen or that their reported locations were wrong. He challenges the explanation attached to those observations. Accurate data can still receive an unsupported explanation, so we need to keep the observations and the proposed cause separate.
- CCorrect
'Unsubstantiated' means not adequately supported. Quincy calls the theory behind Phoebe's explanation speculative, which is his reason for being skeptical. He doesn't have to prove the explanation false to object that she hasn't established it.
- D
Quincy doesn't tell us what caused the lights. Calling the association a possible coincidence isn't a competing account of how the lights were produced. An alternative explanation would identify another source of the lights; Quincy instead questions Phoebe's proposed source.
- E
He doesn't say the earthquake information has nothing to do with the question. His objection is that the theory linking earthquakes to lightning lacks adequate support. Information can be relevant to a proposed explanation without being strong enough to establish it.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.