Logical Reasoning

PT21 · S2 · Q24 The rejection by the meteorologist

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

Statistician: Changes in the Sun’s luminosity correlate exceedingly well with average land temperatures on Earth.

S's conclusion

The sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth.

Meteorologist

Nah, nah, nah. As all my colleagues would tell you, in a system as complicated as what gives rise to climate, no significant part of it can be controlled by a single variable.

Evaluate

We're supposed to categorize the type of evidence, and it kind of just seemed like the meteorologist was like "no, you're just wrong". A thing like land temps can't be controlled by a thing like the Sun.

They did point out the complexity of the system. So maybe the answer will say highlight a distinction.

And they do say "Any meteorologist will tell you", so the answer might say something like appeals to an authority.

Goal

Just find something that matches. Break it up into Conclusion and Evidence pieces and try to match abstract language to the specifics of the answer choice.

24.

The rejection by the meteorologist of the statistician’s conclusion employs which one of the following techniques of argumentation?

Correct
supporting a conclusion about a
Why this is right
The generalization invoked is this: In a complicated system, no significant aspect can be controlled by just one factor. Her conclusion is about the specific case of whether the Sun could be the sole cause of land temperatures on Earth. She says "no it couldn't", because climate is a complicated system, land temperatures are a significant factor in climate, and so they cannot be controlled by just one factor, such as the Sun.
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
52% picked this
producing a single counterexample that
Out of Scope: counterexample
The generalization being argued with is that "the Sun's luminosity essentially controls land temperatures on Earth". If we were trying to prove that false with a single counterexample (we couldn't, since the 'essentially' tolerates exceptions), we would want one of these situations: - the Sun's luminosity changed a bunch, but land temperatures didn't or - land temperatures changed a bunch, but the Sun's luminosity hadn't This author doesn't provide either of those.
13% picked this
reanalyzing a correlation as reflecting
Opposite: single cause
The first author presented the correlation between Sun's luminosity and land temps on Earth. He concluded the Sun essentially controls land temps. Our author is reanalyzing that correlation, and specifically saying that in a complicated system, changes to significant factors are not from a single cause.
21% picked this
rejecting a conclusion because it
Out of Scope: can't be tested
We're talking about relationships between the Sun's luminosity and land temperatures on Earth, both of which seem like things that could certainly be measured and experimentally tested.
6% picked this
pointing out that potentially unfavorable
Out of Scope: unfavorable evidence
This author doesn't present counterevidence that's been systematically neglected. She cites a generalization that's incompatible with what the first author has claimed. He may have failed to consider that principle, but he hasn't systematically neglected evidence.
8% 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