Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 1 · Question 6

Incorrect. Even if they were not well known before 1953, they still would have been the causal factors in the tornadoes. If they've remained unchanged, it's unclear why the total number of recorded tornadoes has gone up.

Incorrect. Intensity isn't necessarily related to the number of tornadoes, and that's what needs to be explained.

Incorrect. It may have gone up only slightly in the past 5 years, but the aggregate increase over the past 50+ years is much higher despite no changes in the underlying causes, so the paradox still stands.

Incorrect. Similar to (C), property damage doesn't speak to an increase in the number of reported tornadoes, so this answer doesn't resolve the paradox. If you were thinking that someone is more likely to report a tornado if it damages their property, that requires a jump that is completely avoided by the correct answer, directly stating that reports are up.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Recorded tornadoes have tripled, but the climatic factors that cause them are unchanged.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a "tell" early on in this stimulus that you should be on the lookout for in the future. The stimulus doesn't establish that the number of tornadoes has increased. It establishes that the number of reported tornadoes has increased. Since the underlying causes of tornadoes are unchanged, there should be the same number of tornadoes. So the correct answer will likely highlight how more of these tornadoes are ending up getting reported.

Answer Explanation:
If there are more people helping to detect tornadoes, then the number of reported tornadoes could go up even if the number of tornadoes stayed the same. This would explain why there was no change to the underlying causes of tornadoes, but more are being reported.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever the LSAT talks about something being reported, or observed, or about the known instances of something, it's talking about something subjective, not objective. These words/phrases are easy to miss, but they carry a lot of weight on the LSAT, so train yourself to spot them when they're present.