Logical Reasoning

PT131 · S2 · Q4 Scientist: While studying centuries-old Antarctic

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

Scientist: While studying centuries-old Antarctic ice deposits, I found that several years of relatively severe atmospheric pollution in the 1500s coincided with a period of relatively high global temperatures.

Conclusion

In this case, atmospheric pollution did cause global temps to rise

Evidence

In the 1500s, several years of high atmospheric pollution coincided with a period of higher than average global temps.

Evaluation

Just because pollution coincided with higher temps doesn't mean that pollution caused the higher temps. This is a classic Correlation vs. Causality argument.

Goal

Look for an answer naming the illicit move from "X coincided with Y" to "X caused Y", or look for an answer saying that the author has failed to consider other possible causes for why global temps were higher in the 1500s.

4.

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

  1. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Out of Scope: "harmful"

    Nothing in the argument discusses the potential consequences of higher global temps. It's just assessing what caused the higher temps in the 1500s and over-confidently assuming that it was pollution that caused them.

    0% picked this

  2. draws a general conclusion based

    Bad Premise/Conclusion Match

    Does the author draw a general conclusion? Nope, it's specific: "in this case ..." Furthermore, we aren't given any reason for thinking that the 1500s are somehow likely to be unrepresentative. This describes the Famous Flaw called Sampling.

    2% picked this

  3. inappropriately generalizes from facts about

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Does the author draw a universal conclusion? Nope, it's specific: "in this case ..."

    5% picked this

  4. takes for granted that the

    Not a Flaw

    Yes, the author is of course assuming that her data is reliable. However, we wouldn't call that a reasoning flaw. A reasoning flaw takes the form of , "even if your Premise is true, the Conclusion might be false." So saying to the author "Your Premise might not be true" would not be objecting to reasoning, it would be objecting to one specific fact.

    0% picked this

  5. Correct

    infers, merely from a claim

    Why this is right

    Does the author conclude that one phenom caused another? Yes, she concludes that pollution caused higher global temps. Is her only evidence a claim that these two phenomena were associated? Yes, her premise is that in the 1500s, pollution coincided with higher global temps. This answer describes one version of the famous Causal Flaw.

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

    93% 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