PrepTest 147

Incorrect. Just because the air has to be cool for there to be snow doesn't mean that snow is or isn't a factor in atmospheric temperatures. They could be unrelated, or they could be in a positive feedback loop.

Incorrect. If anything, this weakens the argument by establishing that there are other factors that could explain the temperature fluctuations. Viable alternatives weaken arguments; eliminating them strengthens arguments.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
The more sunlight reflected back to space, the colder the planet. Snow/ice reflect more than water/land. So the more of the Earth covered in ice/snow, the cooler the planet.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is interesting in that it strongly hints at causality while continuing to use correlative language. Go ahead and try to find a causal word—the closest you'll get is that snow/ice reflect more sunlight into space than water/land. Both the opening premise and conclusion are correlations—the more of one thing, the more there tends to be of something else. Thinking about the argument as establishing causality would be incorrect.

However, the argument clearly assumes that there's a causal relationship here. Otherwise, it wouldn't carry the relationship over to a specific instance of snow/ice compared to land/water. Since the argument assumes causality, we can strengthen the argument via the same methods—eliminate alternative causes, find more examples, find a control, or explain the causality.

There's also another route the correct answer could take, however, and it's based on another common type of logic we have in the stimulus. When talking about the relationships here, the argument is drawing a comparison between reflective land and less reflective land. Since the argument relies on these types of land having a different impact on global temperatures, any answer that brings up a relevant difference on that front would strengthen the argument, as well.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is related to both the causality and the comparison drawn in the stimulus, so we should dig in. The stimulus argues that covering more of the planet with ice/snow will cool the planet, since more sunlight will then be reflected back into space. If it's true that not covering the oceans and land with snow and ice will actually warm the Earth's atmosphere, then it makes it more likely that covering it up will result in cooler temperatures. By suggesting that the Earth will be hotter without snow/ice cover, this answer strengthens the conclusion that increasing snow/ice cover will result in a cooler Earth.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments may assume causality without ever using causal language. This can still be a correlation/causation flaw. Here, the conclusion is a correlation that is clearly meant to suggest causality, but there's another common method for the LSAT to introduce assumed causality without using causal language. That is to make a recommendation in the conclusion (frequently using the word "should"). To make a recommendation or say something "should" be done, one must assume that the action recommended will have a desired effect.

Incorrect. Since the conclusion of the argument is about snow/ice cover vs. land/water cover, what happens before the light hits the Earth is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to think about snow and ice as lighter still and thus even more reflective, but we already know that ice/snow reflect more light than water/land, so this doesn't add anything.