Logical Reasoning

PT16 · S3 · Q6 Recent unexpectedly heavy rainfalls in

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

Recent unexpectedly heavy rainfalls in the metropolitan area have filled the reservoirs and streams; water rationing, therefore, will not be necessary this summer.

Prediction / Conclusion (will / therefore)

Water rationing will not be necessary this summer.

Evidence

Unexpectedly ample rainfalls in the metro area have filled the reservoirs and streams.

Evaluate

Given that ... rain has filled the local reservoirs and streams,

How can we say that ... there will still be a reason to do water rationing this summer?

What is water rationing? It's probably like the water equivalent of doing rolling blackouts or brownouts. It's an attempt by the city to get people to use less water. Maybe people aren't allowed to hose down their lawns and cars. Maybe the water pressure coming out of shower heads is lowered.

We could think about this argument in terms analogous to budgeting our financing: if we had some unexpected windfall where we suddenly were showered with some money, would that mean that we don't need to do any budgeting or conserve our spending in the upcoming months?

Not necessarily. Maybe this new money has to go to pay down our debts, so we still need to budget this summer. Or maybe we know that we have a huge expense coming in the fall, so we should still budget this summer.

Goal

It's hard to know exactly what story they'll give us, but it needs to let us say,

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the author’s prediction?

Water rationing was imposed in
Unclear Impact
Can we say, "Since rationing happened in 3 of the last 5 years, it's going to be necessary again this summer"? Hmmm, it's unclear. In order for us to use a past = present type logic, we need to know that the past and the present are relevantly similar. In those 3 years where there was rationing, was there also an unusually severe drought that necessitated it? In those 3 years where there was rationing, was there anything like our recent unexpected heavy rainfalls? Given that this year's rain was an unexpected anomaly, the author has good reason to argue that this year is different from years past, so it makes it harder for us to argue "if there was water rationing in the recent past, then there will be again this summer".
1% picked this
A small part of the
No Impact
This seems like a fact that is unchanging from one year to the next. It doesn't help us argue that "we will need water rationing this summer". If this answer said that "the vast majority of the city's water supply comes from deep underground stuff that isn't affected by rainfall", that would weaken, because it would make it seem like the evidence isn't really relevant towards the conclusion.
17% picked this
Correct
The water company’s capacity to
Why this is right
Does this help us argue that we will still need water rationing this summer? Sure. We can say that even though we're good to go now from the standpoint of our "water bank account" (the reservoirs and streams are full), we aren't good to go in terms of our ability to deliver water from there to the people in the city. There has been population growth, so there are more people turning on their faucets at the same time. The water company's ability to pump water to them has not kept up with this increased demand, so the water company may have to still use rationing as a way to make sure the city residents aren't asking for more water at one time than the water company can deliver. This correct answer would have been darn near impossible to predict, but that's Strengthen / Weaken for you. It's more important that we approach the answers with a fuzzy goal. In this case, we should be looking at each answer thinking, "Could I use this to argue that water rationing may still be necessary this summer?"
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
68% picked this
The long-range weather forecast predicts
No Impact
Can we argue that "because this summer is going to be cooler than average, we'll still need water rationing"? There isn't really any common sense connection between cooler temps and water rationing.
2% picked this
In most years the city
No Impact
This answer is saying "it's normal" for there to be less rain during the summer. But the evidence said "we had an abnormal amount of rain" filling up our reservoirs and streams. So we can't really argue that "light rain during summer = we'll still need water rationing this year", because we're not addressing the premise that we have an atypical surplus of water to start the season.
12% 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