PrepTest 140

Incorrect. The argument establishes the ratio of rain to snow in precipitation being relevant, not the total amount. Without knowing what form additional precipitation will take, we can't know how this answer affects the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:Global warming is likely to cause Rocky Mountain winter temps to go up, resulting in more rain and less snow, so the snowpack will melt faster and earlier, and thus there will be more spring flooding and less water for summer.

Answer Anticipation:
Careful here—the conclusion is definitely causal, but so are the premises(/intermediate conclusions). Since all statements are causal, the error in reasoning isn't a correlation/causation flaw, and we have to look for a different flaw.

Similar to arguments based on conditional logic, causal arguments—when they don't feature a correlation/causation flaw—frequently have a term shift. Here, the argument makes some big jumps in each step of the argument. Does the snowpack melt faster when there's more rain and less snow, or does that rain in some way prevent melting (by, say, becoming ice that melts more slowly)? When the snowpack melts faster and earlier, is there more spring flooding? These connections aren't established by the argument, so any answer that connects them will strengthen it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice connects snowpack melting to spring flooding/less storable water. That's one of the jumps that needed to be established for the Climatologist's argument to be valid, so in providing evidence for that connection, this answer strengthens the argument. This is a great example of the subtlety of correlation/causation flaws—while correlations can't prove causation, it can provide evidence for it. Here, showing a correlation between two elements the argument assumes are causally linked strengthened that relationship.

Key Takeaway:
When a causal conclusion is based on causal premises, the argument isn't committing a correlation/causation flaw. Instead, it's likely jumping between some steps, and anything connecting any of the elements of those gaps will strengthen the argument.

Incorrect. First, this answer choice doesn't compare different temperatures in the same mountains, but rather two areas of a mountain with different average winter temperatures. Since the stimulus is about a given range seeing increasing temperatures, this answer choice represents a different situation. Additionally, unlike (B), this answer choice doesn't directly connect two "steps" in the causal chain explored by the stimulus—it'd need to connect snowpack melting to the decreased amount of storable water to strengthen the argument.

Incorrect. This answer isn't about mountains or about areas seeing changes in average temperatures, so this answer doesn't necessarily impact the argument.

Incorrect. If anything, in suggesting that there will be less snow after the temperatures increase, the argument suggests the snowpack will be smaller. However, it states that the spring flooding will increase, so this answer is more in the opposite direction of the stimulus.