2993

[zip]

Question # 8 Results Screen

P: No county in this region has experienced a steady increase in annual rainfall over any consecutive years within the decade.

(A): (If a county's climate were affected by the melting of Glacier X, the county would have experienced a steady increase in annual rainfall over two consecutive years.)

(A): (If a county's climate were affected by the melting of Glacier X, the county would have experienced an increase in rainfall over the last decade.)

C: No county in this region had a climate that was affected by the melting of Glacier X.
Previous
Next
Visit arcade forum to discuss the question (QUESTION # 2993)

This one is a stinker. Neither assumption allows the conclusion to be validly inferred. The credited assumption targets the consecutive year increase in the premise, but ignores the decade restriction. We have no way of knowing whether this condition existed prior to last decade. The conclusion also has no restriction based on time. So the A utterly fails. I think that the defect could be corrected by placing a time restriction in the assumption or removing it from the premise. As it stands the argument is flatly invalid.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey Zip, what do you think if the language read:

(A): (If a county's climate were affected by the melting of Glacier X, the county would have experienced a steady increase in annual rainfall over two consecutive years in the past decade.)

[zip]

Bingo!