Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S1 · Q17 Columnist: It is impossible for

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Columnist: It is impossible for there to be real evidence that lax radiation standards that were once in effect at nuclear reactors actually contributed to the increase in cancer rates near such sites.

Conclusion

It is impossible for there to be real evidence that lax radiation standards once at nuclear reactors actually contributed to the increase in cancer rates near such sites.

Evidence

You can't say if a particular case of cancer is due to radiation, environmental toxins, smoking, poor diet, or genetic factors.

Evaluate

We would assign ourselves the goal of arguing that, .

How would we respond to the author's idea that you can never say for sure whether a particular case of cancer came from X, Y, or Z?

We might say, "hey, we're talking about EVIDENCE, not PROOF."

Maybe I can't prove that a particular case of cancer was caused by smoking, but I can still provide real evidence for that claim.

I can show how much the person smoked. I can present scientific evidence about how smoking affects lung cells. I can undermine some of these other possible explanations by showing that this smoker had a good diet, lived in a low-toxin environment, and has a family with no genetic history of cancer.

Does that prove that smoking caused the cancer? No, but it's a pretty compelling body of evidence to suspect that smoking probably caused the cancer.

Similarly, couldn't we marshal a lot of evidence to make it very plausible that leaking radiation from the reactors caused the uptick in cancer around those sites?

Goal

Let's look for an answer getting at this idea that even if we can't prove X caused Y, we can still present a lot of real evidence that X caused Y.

17.

The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

Correct
The argument fails to recognize
Why this is right
Since this begins with "fails to consider", we'll ask ourselves whether it could weaken. Does it work to say, "even if individual causes can't be known, there may be convincing statistical evidence"? Sure! That's basically saying, "even if [your premise] is true, [your conclusion] could be wrong." We can admit that we wouldn't be able to PROVE that John Johnston's cancer came from living near the reactor. Maybe it was from his love of toxins, fast food, or Marlboro Lights. But -- can't we present convincing statistical evidence that the reactor is causing cancer problems? If we said, "among people who live within 1 mile of the reactor, the cancer rate is 80%, whereas among people who live farther away, the cancer rate is only 35", that would be hella incriminating for the reactor. Again, it's not PROOF, but it's very strong evidence that the reactor is to blame. If you lived within a mile of the reactor and saw that stat, you'd pull up Zillow asap.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
59% picked this
The argument inappropriately presupposes that
Causal Flaw
This describes a variation of the Causal flaw, where an author confidently reasons that since X happened right before Y, it must be that X caused Y. In such an argument, the premise would mention a before/after, but our premise doesn't present such a thing. And the conclusion would posit a causal connection, but our conclusion is coming closer to denying a causal connection.
1% picked this
The argument inappropriately draws a
Bad Description
This describes a variation of the Sampling flaw, where an author says that X was true in this particular case, so X is true about cases like this in general. In such an argument, the premise would mention a particular case of cancer. Our premise does not. It says the words "particular case of cancer", but it doesn't present any particular case of cancer. And the conclusion would be a claim about cancer in general, but our conclusion is specifically about cancer around the sites of nuclear reactors. This answer choice describes an argument that sounds like, "Since John Johnston's cancer was caused by living too close to a reactor, most cases of cancer are caused by living too close to a reactor."
7% picked this
The argument ignores other possible
Bad Description
The columnist actually cites other possible causes (environmental toxins, smoking, diet, genetics). The argument doesn't ignore them, it relies on them!
2% picked this
The argument concludes that a
Bad Description
This describes a variation of the Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, where an author says, "there's no evidence that X is true. hence, X isn't true." In such an argument, the premise would mention a lack of evidence for a claim. Does our premise do that? No, our premise points out that more than one cause could lead to a certain effect. That has nothing to do with calling out a lack of evidence for a claim. This answer describes an argument like, "Since there's no evidence that reactors cause cancer, reactors don't cause cancer." That feels relatively close to the argument, but the conclusion doesn't say reactors don't cause cancer. It's just saying there isn't any real evidence for that claim. I can say "there isn't any real evidence for the afterlife" but that doesn't mean I'm saying, "there isn't an afterlife". To put it a simpler way, this answer describes an argument where the PREMISE calls out a lack of evidence, but in the argument we read it was the CONCLUSION that was calling out a lack of evidence.
31% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free