PrepTest 107

[lcid:3524] Prep Test 107 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Columnist: It is impossible Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Errors in Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

Since you can’t tell what caused cancer in any given case, you can’t have evidence that nuclear plants increased cancer rates.

Answer Anticipation

“[A] particular case”? When you see an argument that’s talking about a singular instance of something, you should see if it’s jumping between that single case and the overall rate of something happening. Single instances are a data point, but they don’t speak to the truth of the overall area.
Here, does the argument jump from individual cancer cases to cancer cases overall? It does. The Columnist establishes that we can’t be sure what caused cancer in one case, and then she concludes that we can’t have evidence that something, overall, increased cancer rates. However, even if we don’t know what caused any individual case of cancer, the statistics might be clear that cancer rates in areas around nuclear plants were much higher than they were in other areas.
This is, in essence, a jump between individual cases and averages/statistical correlations, so we should look for an answer reflecting that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The argument fails to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    Right off the bat, we get an answer highlighting a jump from individual cases to a statistical review. Here, we can’t tell what caused any one case of cancer, but there might be statistical evidence showing a strong correlation between being near a nuclear plant and cancer. It’s a variation of a Part to Whole flaw, so this is the correct answer.
  2. B
    The argument inappropriately presupposes Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The argument concludes that you can’t determine causality here.
  3. C
    The argument inappropriately draws Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    A very tempting trap answer! However, there are two slight shifts here that invalidate this answer. First, the argument isn’t about causes of cancer in general - it’s about one specific cause of cancer, just one that may have affected a lot of people. Second, it mentions a particular case of cancer, but the stimulus doesn’t go into a particular case. It talks about a “generic” individual case, not a specific one. That said, this answer choice is evil, and it would be easy to incorrectly select it.
  4. D
    The argument ignores other Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    In arguing that there isn’t evidence for the nuclear plants as the cause of these cancers, the Columnist must believe that other causes are possible, so she’s not ignoring them.
  5. E
    The argument concludes that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    So tempting! But there’s a key problem with this answer. The conclusion is that there isn’t evidence that the nuclear plants caused cancer - not that they didn’t. In mischaracterizing the conclusion, this answer is incorrect.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Flaw Question 3 replies

    Started by Maxx

  • Why B? 4 replies

    Started by Lizzie-Annerino

  • Why is A correct? 1 reply

    Started by Shiyi-Zhang

View all discussions Start a discussion