Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 4 · Question 14

Incorrect. The argument never establishes that a period of insufficient rain occurred before the national crisis did—the conclusion assumes it must have.

Incorrect. The government takeover of food distribution was not key to the argument—just that there were faltering crops and rising food prices. How the government responded is out of scope since the premise about the causal connection between weather and agriculture, and the conclusion about the same, doesn't mention it.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't dig into what made up the crisis, just establishing that there were issues with agriculture during it, so it doesn't equivocate between types of crises.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Rain shortages can cause agricultural issues. Agricultural issues were present in a recent national crisis, so weather must have been a factor.

Answer Anticipation:
Note that conclusion—it's very strong in saying that weather "must" have been a factor in the agricultural issues that plagued a nation during a recent crisis. However, the premise that it's based on is much weaker than that—rain shortages "can" cause crops to falter and prices to rise. That's a big jump from possibility to certainty, so the correct answer should highlight that jump.

Another way of looking at this is that it's a bit of a reversal. It establishes that one thing is a cause for a given effect, and then it treats the effect as establishing the cause. However, there's always the possibility that there's more than one cause for a given effect—something this argument ignores. Both ways of looking at the flaw, however, should lead to similar answers.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the jump from a premise establishing that rain shortages can cause agriculture issues to a conclusion that agriculture issues must have been caused by weather issues (e.g., rain shortages).

Key Takeaway:
The word "can" on the LSAT is used very technically to refer to something as possible. That's different from how we frequently use it in the real world, where saying something like, "I can go to the park this weekend," suggests more than just a possibility—most who heard that would assume that the person is likely or certain to go to the park. We use it almost as a throwaway word in conversation, and so it's dangerous on the test because we can similarly skim over it without noting the weak logical force of it. Train yourself to hit these words hard as you read them—it's not, "I can go to the park this weekend," but rather, "I CAN go to the park this weekend . . . "

Incorrect. First, the argument is causal, not conditional. Second, if anything, the argument suggests that insufficient rain could be sufficient to cause agricultural price increases, not that it's necessary for it.