Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 2 · Question 4

Incorrect. The argument is just about an increase in global temperatures, not whether that was a good/bad thing or whether something should be done to prevent a future increase.

Incorrect. First, the conclusion is just that the pollution caused the global temperature increase "in this case," so it's not generalizing. Second, there's no reason to believe that the 1500s would "likely" be unrepresentative.

Incorrect. The conclusion limits itself to discussing "this case" from the 1500s, so it doesn't generalize to other time periods.

Incorrect. On the LSAT, treat premises as true. Unless it gives a reason for you to believe that a method was unreliable, it doesn't need to be established that it was reliable.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Scientist: Ice deposits show that periods of pollution in the 1500s coincided with high temperatures, so pollution caused global warming in that case.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument raises a correlation and jumps to causation—the atmospheric pollution and high global temperatures happened at the same time, so the pollution caused global warming. The correct answer should highlight this common flaw.

Note that the claim of causation is limited—"in this case." Watch out for a trap answer that treats the conclusion as being broader than it actually is!

Answer Explanation:
Here's our general correlation/causation answer!

Key Takeaway:
While people generally focus on learning causal language, it can be helpful to know correlative language, as well. In this stimulus, as soon as you saw the phrase "coincided with," you should have started to think correlation/causation flaw. Another common one? "More/less likely to."