PrepTest 131, Section 2, Question 4
Scientist: While studying centuries-old Antarctic ice deposits, I(37 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the scientist's(12 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without providing(9 more words not shown)
- Bdraws a general(11 more words not shown)
- Cinappropriately generalizes from(11 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(9 more words not shown)
- Einfers, merely from(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Pollution and high temperatures occurred during the same period. Does that tell us the pollution caused the temperatures to rise?
The ice deposits give the scientist evidence of an association in the 1500s. That is worth investigating, but the conclusion moves beyond it. Something else might explain the high temperatures, with pollution merely occurring at the same time. The evidence hasn't eliminated that possibility or otherwise shown that pollution produced the warming.
What we’re looking for
So the flaw is already visible: the scientist treats two things happening together as proof that one caused the other. We can accept the reported pattern in the ice and still question the explanation for it. We don't need to establish what actually caused the warming to see that this evidence hasn't settled the cause.
Working the answers
- A
The scientist doesn't say higher temperatures are harmful. The conclusion concerns what caused a temperature rise, not whether that rise is good or bad. Nothing in the reasoning requires a judgment about harm.
- B
The passage gives no basis for saying the ice deposits are likely to be unrepresentative. More importantly, the causal leap remains even if the deposits accurately reveal the pollution and temperatures of the period. The problem is what the scientist infers from that association.
- C
Watch 'in this case.' The conclusion concerns the period under discussion. It doesn't claim that pollution always causes temperatures to rise or that the same explanation applies universally. C attacks a broader conclusion than the scientist makes.
- D
The scientist does rely on the data-gathering method, and a faulty method could undermine a study. But nothing here indicates that the method is unreliable. We don't need to invent a problem with the measurements: even reliable measurements of two associated phenomena wouldn't establish that one caused the other. E identifies that demonstrated gap.
- ECorrect
The two phenomena are atmospheric pollution and high global temperatures. The scientist observes that they coincided, then concludes that the pollution caused the temperature rise. Association alone doesn't establish that causal direction or rule out another explanation. This describes exactly the move that made us hesitate.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.