Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT131 S2 Q4 Explanation

Scientist: While studying centuries-old Antarctic

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

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

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. So it is clear did cause global temperatures to rise.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
4.

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

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: "harmful"0% picked this

    presumes, without providing justification, that a rise in global temperatures

    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.

  2. Bad Premise/Conclusion Match2% picked this

    draws a general conclusion based on a sample that is likely

    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.

  3. Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

    inappropriately generalizes from facts about a specific period of time to

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

  4. Not a Flaw0% picked this

    takes for granted that the method used for gathering data

    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.

  5. Correct93% picked this

    infers, merely from a claim that two phenomena are associated, that one phenomenon

    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.

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