Logical reasoning PrepTest 116 · Section 2 · Question 4

Incorrect. The stimulus establishes that ten—year periods of record breaking heat are often a part of natural fluctuations, but that doesn't mean that there aren't longer periods of record breaking heat.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Study — The avg. temp for each of the last 5 years has been the highest on record at the time.
Conclusion of study — The Earth's temp is permanently
Pivot — 10 year periods with record highs are often just random fluctuations

Answer Anticipation:
This Must Be True question is interesting in that it has a viewpoint—rebuttal structure that we don't frequently see in this question type. As with all Must Be True questions, though, we don't call the information presented into question.

But that raises the question—how do we accept as true a statement that the LSAT rebuts? And this brings up an important distinction—statements of fact, and statements of viewpoint. Here, the rebutted point is that the average temperature on Earth has permanently increased, but the phrasing in the stimulus isn't just that—it's that this is a claim made by a study. So while we have to accept as true that the study makes this claim, we don't have to accept the truth of the claim, since it's never stated as a truth. This subtle distinction—accepting as true that a claim was made, but not accepting as true the claim—is one that occasionally shows up to trip us up on the LSAT, so be sure to know the difference.

With that established, we can see that it's unlikely that the opening claim will play into the correct answer as it's ultimately rebutted. The author's part of the argument starts at the pivot (However . . . "), and that information is presented as something that is true—10—year periods of record—breaking heat can be just a natural fluctuation. That's a general statement that we can look to apply to the answers to see which one is backed up.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects both the statement made by the author and that it's set up to rebut the claims of the study. Up—to—10—year periods of record—breaking heat can be a part of the "random fluctuations" of temperature, and thus they might not be permanent. So a 5—year period would also fall into that category, not necessarily signifying a permanent change in temperature. So based purely on the statement made by the author, this answer is supported. Additionally, the study claims that the current trend does support that there is a permanent change in temperature, but the author pivots away from that, and so as a rebuttal, this answer is also supported.

Key Takeaway:
When a Must Be True question brings up an opposing point, you don't have to accept that viewpoint's content as true, just that the viewpoint has that belief. For instance, you can say that it's true that Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat without committing yourself to believing the Earth is flat.

Incorrect. The author notes that periods of up to" 10 years can be a part of random fluctuation, so there's no indication that the current 5—year trend will extend to the limits of that.

Incorrect. While the author does note that random fluctuations can happen for up to" 10 years, that doesn't guarantee that the limit isn't normally reached. It could be that most or nearly all fluctuations last for 10 years, but a small minority last for a shorter time period.

Incorrect. The author puts forward random fluctuations in temperature as something that often" happens, not always, so there could be cases where the fluctuation isn't random.