Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S3 · Q5 The chances that tropical storms

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

The chances that tropical storms will develop in a given area increase whenever the temperature of a large body of water in that area exceeds 26 degrees Celsius to a depth of about 60 meters.

Statements

conditionals (whenever / if) causal (with the result that)

Temp of large chance of a body of water > → tropical storm 26ª C to a depth developing of about 60 m increases

CO2 continues → temp of all → # of large to increase water will bodies > go up 26º at 60m will go up

Evaluate

On Inference questions (Most Supported / Must Be True / Agree-Disagree), we're always reading for Overlapping Information.

The common denominator in the first and second sentence here is the concept of .

And whenever we see conditional or causal wording, we ask ourselves whether there's any chain of conditional/causal ideas.

When we see conditional/causal + an Overlapping Concept, it suggests that we should be connecting a conditional/causal chain.

For example, GIVEN: If X, then Y. X causes Y. If Y, then Z. Y causes Z.

INFER: If X, then Z X causes Z.

In both examples, the overlapping idea of Y is allowing us to connect X and Z.

In this paragraph we have a big ol' causal chain:

1. CO2 in the atmosphere keeps increasing 2. temp of all water on Earth rises 3. # of large bodies > 26º at 60m goes up 4. chances of tropical storm goes up

The paragraph is written to disguise this chain. Instead of it saying , it says this:

D happens whenever C does. If A happens, B will happen, with the result that C will happen.

Goal

Since we have a chain that A ⇢ B ⇢ C ⇢ D, we expect the answer to say something like "A leads to D".

In this case, let's look for something like .

5.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following conclusions?

  1. Correct

    There are likely to be

    Why this is right

    This says, "If CO2 in Earth's atmosphere continues increasing, then likely more tropical storms". That was our prediction, from putting together the causal chain. More CO2 leads to rising water temps, and that results in more large bodies of water exceeding 26 degrees at a depth of 60m. And whenever the temp of a large body of water exceeds 26 degrees at a depth of 60m, the chance of tropical storms goes up.

    Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    93% picked this

  2. Tropical storms can occur only

    Too Strong: only when

    This says If air temperature is ? then impossible to 26º or less have a tropical storm Nothing in this paragraph ever identified a required characteristic for a tropical storm to occur. The first sentence just talks about a phenomenon that would be sufficient to make a tropical storm more likely.

    1% picked this

  3. The number of large bodies

    Too Strong: greater than ever

    We don't have any information about Earth's past. We only know that in the future, if CO2 continues to increase, then the number of large bodies exceeding 26º will be higher than it is today. But we don't know that today's number is the highest in all of Earth's history. There may have been times in Earth's 4 billion year history when there were more large bodies of water with temps exceeding 26 degrees.

    3% picked this

  4. The ferocity of tropical storms

    Out of Scope: ferocity

    The passage never discusses different levels of severity of tropical storms, so we can't possibly derive an idea about what affects the ferocity (how ferocious the storm is). We only talk about one phenomenon that can increase the likelihood of a tropical storm developing, but we have no idea whether that storm will be of lower/average/higher intensity.

    1% picked this

  5. Any increase in the temperatures

    Reversed Causal Relationship

    We were told that more CO2 would lead to higher water temps. This answer is saying that higher water temps leads to more CO2. We don't have any way to justify saying that causal relationship in reverse.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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