PrepTest 130, Section 3, Question 24
The asteroid that hit the Yucatán Peninsula 65(77 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AI know that(50 more words not shown)
- BSince we are(43 more words not shown)
- CIt has not(59 more words not shown)
- DThe flooding in(65 more words not shown)
- EWe have good(58 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We know the asteroid caused two effects: climatic change and a firestorm. We don't know which, if either, was the specific route to the triceratops's extinction. Does that prevent us from attributing the extinction to the asteroid at all?
Not necessarily. It is possible to have evidence for a broad cause while remaining uncertain about the exact pathway. Perhaps we could establish that one of the asteroid's effects caused the extinction without being able to settle which effect did it. Then uncertainty between the fire and the climate change wouldn't defeat attribution to their common source.
That is not proof that the asteroid caused the extinction. It explains why the two stated failures to establish a particular mechanism don't justify the author's blanket conclusion about what we can attribute to the impact.
What we’re looking for
To match the flaw, look for an initial event that causes two effects, uncertainty about whether either particular effect caused a further outcome, and then an unjustified refusal to attribute the outcome to the initial event. The distinction between the broad cause and the precise route is what needs to carry over.
Working the answers
- A
Leon and Pam might be unable to move the piano individually but able to move it together. The mistake is carrying a limitation of each person working alone over to the pair working jointly. There is no initial event causing two effects whose uncertain roles lead to the rejection of their common source.
- B
Knowing that one of two candidates will win isn't knowing which candidate will win. We could be sure that either Cheng or Lin wins while having no basis for choosing between them. B is flawed, but it moves from knowledge of an either-or result to knowledge of a particular alternative. It lacks the original's initial cause, two effects, and subsequent causal attribution.
- C
Not proving that speeding caused the accident doesn't prove that speeding didn't cause it. The same goes for weaving out of the lane. C turns absence of conclusive proof into conclusive proof of a negative. The original concludes that we cannot attribute the outcome to a broader event, not that the two candidate mechanisms have been conclusively disproved. C also supplies no initial event corresponding to the asteroid that caused both candidate mechanisms.
- DCorrect
The flooding corresponds to the asteroid's impact. Furnace damage and the electrical short correspond to the climatic change and firestorm: two effects produced by the initial event. The later fire corresponds to the extinction, the further outcome whose cause is at issue.
Investigators cannot establish that either particular effect caused the fire, just as the original cannot establish the particular route to extinction. The conclusion then refuses attribution to the flooding itself. But uncertainty about whether the furnace damage or electrical short was the mechanism needn't prevent establishing the flooding as the broader cause. D reproduces the entire mistaken move.
- E
This combines supported causal connections: high tides caused the flooding, and either the sun or the moon caused the high tides. It then traces the flooding back to one of those causes. It does not use uncertainty about a particular intermediate mechanism to reject attribution to an upstream event. Its direction is toward a broad causal explanation, not away from one because the exact route is unresolved.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.