Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S4 · Q14 Insufficient rain can cause crops

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

Start practicing free

Insufficient rain can cause crops to falter and agricultural prices to rise.

Conclusion

The weather played an important role in bringing about the recent food crisis.

Evidence

The recent food crisis involved faltering crops and rising agricultural prices. + Insufficient rain can cause faltering crops and rising agricultural prices.

Evaluation

This argument is essentially the same as saying: Billy apparently jumped off a building. After all, Billy recently died, and jumping off a building can cause death.

Insufficient rain is one possible cause of bad crops / rising prices, but there may be other possible causes of bad crops / rising prices, so we can't just assume that weather (i.e. insufficient rain) was the cause of this recent food crisis.

Goal

Find an answer describing the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw of assuming that one possible cause is the cause. Or find an answer making the objection that something else could have caused the bad crops / rising prices in this instance.

14.

The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. concludes, merely from the fact

    Bad Evidence Match

    Does the author conclude that insufficient rain caused the crisis? Sure. Does the author's evidence state that a period of insufficient rain occurred right before the crisis? Nope. The evidence just provides a general rule that insufficient rain can cause certain things.

    11% picked this

  2. fails to take into account

    Out of Scope: "justified"

    This argument isn't in any way evaluating the merits of the government's response. So this idea that "food wasn't so scarce that govt needed to step in" wouldn't be an objection to the author. "Something else caused the crisis" / "we've had plenty of rain, prior to this crisis" is what would be an objection to this author.

    1% picked this

  3. uses the term “crisis” equivocally

    Not Equivocation

    The word crisis is used consistently. I'm not sure whether we'd call the crisis political, economic, ecological, health-related, food-related, or several of the above. But both times crisis is being used, it's referring to this recent period of faltering crops and rising food prices.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    infers, merely from the fact

    Why this is right

    Does the author conclude that one event caused another? Yes. She concludes that insufficient rain helped cause the faltering crops / rising prices. Does the only piece of evidence say that "insufficient rain could have caused faltering crops / rising prices"? Yes.

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

    80% picked this

  5. takes for granted that any

    Backwards Logic

    This author takes for granted that a condition (insufficient rain) that is sufficient for higher agricultural prices is also necessary. The premise is that insufficient rain ? rising prices But when the author argues that, SINCE rising prices ? insufficient rain He's acting like insufficient rain is an automatic (necessary) inference we can make from seeing faltering crops and rising prices.

    6% 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