Q12 - global warming in rocky mountain

[jm.kahn]

B is the best answer and therefore correct. I'm having trouble with cases if B wasn't available as one of the choices.

Since this is a strengthen question, all other answer choice must not strengthen the stim even a bit.
If we look at C, it talks about " on average regions of rocky mountain with milder winter" and an observation about them. This seems to support the cause-effect reasoning asserted in the stim. Since in general regions of rocky mountains with milder winter have one of the effects mentioned in the stim argument, it strengthens the argument.

The same goes for D except that it's talking about "region in the world with milder winters, on average."
If the choice in B were not provided as an answer choice and B instead had an obvious incorrect answer choice in its place, then wouldn't C and D strengthen?

What precisely is it about C and D that one should think they don't strengthen the argument even by a bit?

If the potential objection against these choices is that they're talking about an observation about "regions with milder winters" "on average" and not for all regions, then that still seems confusing.

If someone says "when there is plenty of rain, a river overflows" without any other information, then it seems a statement that says "on average, rivers located in regions with plenty of rain overflow more compared to one located in regions with less rain" strengthens the argument at least by bit. If we know that on average rivers that have a certain characteristic (rain) that the river in the argument does, show the same effect (overflow) as the river in the argument, it's not a knowledge that's neutral or weakening to the argument.

Thanks!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, jm.kahn!

This is a very tricky question indeed!

First, a note about strengthen questions, in general. It's not actually correct to say that only one answer will strengthen even a teensy bit. That's usually true, but there are absolutely questions where one could make a case that other answers strengthened just a teeny tiny bit, while correct answer strengthens in a clear and substantive way.

Is that a judgment call? Yes it is, but when this occurs, it's never a hairsplitting difference between the strengthen value - it's always a wide gulf. The correct answer makes a bright, clear connection, while the incorrect answers only argument strengthen in the most miniscule ways.

You seem to understand why (B) solidly strengthens, but I'm going to lay that out for future readers before addressing your (totally valid!) concerns about (C) and (D)!

Since this is a strengthen question, we go straight to sorting out the core:

PREMISE:
Accepted prediction: Rocky mtns winter temps will increase, causing more of the precip to be rain (than was rain before)
CONCLUSION:
Predicted result: Rocky mtns snowpack will melt earlier (than it did before), causing more flooding (than before) and less storable water (than before)

Notice how the conclusion is not just a conclusion that in a certain situation (mild winter) a certain event will occur (flooding). Rather, this whole argument is a comparison. The premise is a comparison between the olden times (colder, more snow) and the future (warmer, more rain) for the same location. The conclusion is similarly a comparison between what used to happen in this particular location (later melting snowpack, less flooding, more storable water), and what will happen in this particular location (earlier melting snowpack, more flooding, less storable water).

If someone says "when there is plenty of rain, a river overflows" without any other information, then it seems a statement that says "on average, rivers located in regions with plenty of rain overflow more compared to one located in regions with less rain" strengthens the argument at least by bit.

Ahh, but this isn't what the conclusion proposed! The conclusion did not say that "when winters are mild, there is great spring flooding". It said, essentially "in this particular location, if the winter changes from colder to milder, it will likely result in more spring flooding than we had before". It's all comparative, not absolute!

(B) helps to strengthen this by providing a similarly comparative relationship in another similar region ("other mountainous regions"). We know that it's a comparative relationship because it says "after relatively mild winters" - that means relative to what that region normally experiences! And those regions experience more flooding and less storable water "than in those [same areas] after colder winters". So we are comparing the same location in mild winters versus cold winters, which is precisely the comparison we are attempting to make in the original argument!

(C) and (D) are both super tempting, as they both make comparisons between mild winters and cold winters. But notice that they are not comparing the same location.

(C) compares certain areas within the Rocky mtns where winters are relatively mild as compared to other areas with the areas that experience colder winters. Similarly, (D) compares regions of the world with mild winters to other regions of the world with harsh winters.

Because our stimulus was assessing a single location with varying winters, information about how other similar locations behave when their winters change is potentially extremely useful. But comparing totally different locations with totally different winters (and totally different all kinds of things, like elevation, humidity, average precipitation amounts, vegetation, topography, etc) is not really very useful to determine how this one particular location is going to behavior when the winter changes *there*.

Perhaps these mild-winter locations *always* have these effects, even when they have unusually cold winters! If that were true, then the flooding would probably be because of some other factor rather than the mildness of the winter. There's nothing in the data of these answer choices to indicate that it's the mild winter that is actually responsible, and there are a million other possibilities that spring to mind.

For the sake of completeness, I'll briefly address the remaining incorrect answers:
(A) We have no idea how an increase in the average amount of precipitation would affect anything. The argument focuses only on the impact of changing the proportions of rain/snow in the existing average precipitation.
(E) We have no idea whether the snowpack will be getting larger. In fact, it's possible it would get smaller with a milder winter, if the proportion of precipitation that is snow decreases. If that were true, this would arguably weaken the argument that more flooding will result!

Does this help clear things up a bit?

[T.J.]

Yeah, it's pretty awesome. You are the man

[ttunden]

my explanation is a little bit more simple.

Basically we get some relationships in the stimulus. So, we know that Global Warming leads to Increased winter temperatures(FYI meaning temperatures go up, gets hotter, not a colder winter). With increased winter temperatures we get more rain.

Next comes the Climatologists conclusion. Snow will melt more rapidly and earlier leading to greater spring flooding and less water to meet summer demand.

Basically I saw the gap above between more rain and snowing melting. So, my prephase was basically trying to connect the premise to the conclusion.

A- Eliminate. Stimulus already says this. premise booster

B- this looks good. Matches my prephase. Winter temperature increasing so more rain, and this leads to our authors conclusion.

C- No it didn't connect the ideas. Omits snow melting and greater flooding, just leads to less water. Not enough, eliminate.

D- Same as C but this is more broad talking about the world. Stimulus is just talking about Rocky Mountains. Now, I didn't catch this during the test. So, I eliminated this for the same reason C is wrong. Omits melting part of the authors conclusion.

E- no this is completely wrong. this one was easy to eliminate. Not connecting the ideas and it's implying a correlation within the authors conclusion, which the author never did. Also adds in responsibility too.

After examining the options, B looked the best.

[1191893369]

Compared these two explanations, the second one seems to be a quicker solution. But, I was wondering is is valid to use the gap between raining and melting to eliminate C and D just as ttunden did ? Can anyone clarify this?

Thank you very much!

[sunnyivon]

I believe the 2nd answer is the better solution. For answer C, it's still comparing the same location because it says "in areas of the Rocky Mountains". The original premise stated "in the Rocky Mountains" so I will say answer C actually is talking about the subsets, if not the same area, of the premise.

The simpler answer on the other hand points out the flaw - answer C only talks about less storable water but it forgets about greater flooding.

[tommywallach]

Keep in mind, it isn't a question of a "better" way to the answer. We always give the longest possible explanation, because we want our students to understand every side of what's going on. You can always answer FASTER than one of our explanations, but that's not the goal of providing a lengthy explanation. The goal is total comprehension of what was going on! : )

-t

[christine.defenbaugh]

While ttunden's explanation above is attractively simple, I'm afraid it is fundamentally inaccurate. You simply cannot eliminate (C) and (D) for those reasons.

Compared these two explanations, the second one seems to be a quicker solution. But, I was wondering is is valid to use the gap between raining and melting to eliminate C and D just as ttunden did ? Can anyone clarify this?
Thank you very much!

Not exactly. There are a number of connections being made in the original argument. On the premise side, we have 1) milder winters (than before) 2) higher proportion of precip = rain (than before). On the conclusion side, we have 1) snowpack melting faster and earlier (than before), 2) more spring flooding (than before) and 3) less storable water (than before).

Strengthening any connection here would do the job of a strengthen answer. We absolutely do not need to connect every single element.

The fact that (B) mentions the melting snowpack makes it more attractive immediately, but the omission of the melting from (C) and (D) does not make them necessarily wrong. This is not a safe reason to eliminate these answers.

Take this argument:

PREMISE: Jane got an A on her test
CONCLUSION: She'll probably go out to dinner tonight, and then tomorrow go for ice cream.

A perfectly valid strengther would be something like "Whenever Jane got an A last year, she would go out for ice cream."
Now, that's clearly not the BEST strengthener I can think of. But it does strengthen the argument! I would not be able to eliminate it just because it failed to mention Jane's dinner!

(B), (C), and (D) all attempt to strengthen by suggesting that something similar happens in a similar situation. ALL of them establish a similar result (to varying degrees), but if it doesn't occur in a similar situation, it's not useful as a strengthener.

The faulty comparisons of (C) and (D) mean we don't have a similar situation to the original argument. The original argument compared a single location in two different times - only (B) does that.

I believe the 2nd answer is the better solution. For answer C, it's still comparing the same location because it says "in areas of the Rocky Mountains". The original premise stated "in the Rocky Mountains" so I will say answer C actually is talking about the subsets, if not the same area, of the premise.

The simpler answer on the other hand points out the flaw - answer C only talks about less storable water but it forgets about greater flooding.

I'm afraid this is not an accurate way to look at these answers, sunnyivon.

First, the fact that (C) omits greater flooding is not necessarily a problem. As long as an answer strengthened the connection to some part of the conclusion, it would still be strengthening.

Also, (C) is talking about two different areas. You're right that both of these are subsets of the Rocky Mtns, but they are two different subsets. It compares 1) parts of the Rockies with milder winters to 2) other parts of the Rockies with colder winters. This answer compares two different locations to one another, and that doesn't match up with the stimulus at all. The stimulus is comparing what happens in a single location - specifically, it compares what happens when that single location has a milder winter to what happens when that same location has a colder winter.

I realize that it's very tempting to look for extremely simple reasons to eliminate answers, but if those reasons are not fully valid, you will sabotage your own understanding and set yourself up to choose incorrect answers.

ttunden, while I admire the drive to look for clear cut solutions, and simplify where possible, I fear that you've gone a bit too far in using superficial dissimilarities to eliminate answers.

A- Eliminate. Stimulus already says this. premise booster

This actually is not a premise booster. The stimulus did not say that there would be any increase in precipitation. (What it did say was that a greater proportion of the precipitation would be rain.)

C- No it didn't connect the ideas. Omits snow melting and greater flooding, just leads to less water. Not enough, eliminate.

Omitting the ideas of greater flooding and snow melting does not automatically make this answer wrong. It tries to connect to 'less storable water', which would be great IF the comparison this answer makes were appropriate.

D- Same as C but this is more broad talking about the world. Stimulus is just talking about Rocky Mountains. Now, I didn't catch this during the test. So, I eliminated this for the same reason C is wrong. Omits melting part of the authors conclusion.

It is not a problem for this answer to talk about "regions of the world". After all, the correct answer talks about "other mountainous regions", so, not the Rockies.
Like (C) the omission of the melting snowpack might make me skeptical, but it's not enough to eliminate this answer out of hand. If the comparison made sense, this would be a valid strengthener.


Remember, you only want to eliminate an answer on a Strengthen question if it is fundamentally invalid as a strengthener. Don't eliminate things just because they are missing elements that might make them even better strengtheners. And be wary of using superficial variations to justify your answers!

[jones.mchandler]

Wow--just wanted to thank Christine for that amazing explanation. I chose B, not super confidently. I didn't pick up on the subtleties of this argument and its incorrect answers--again, thanks!

[lsat2016]

Thanks for posting, jm.kahn!


(B) helps to strengthen this by providing a similarly comparative relationship in another similar region ("other mountainous regions").

Hello,

I just wanted to ask a quick question - I was a bit wary about B because it talks about “other mountains regions” and not specifically about the Rocky Mountains that the premise talks about. I am usually vary wary of answer choices that do not accurately match the specific wording of the text. Doesn't this answer choice slightly raise the possibility that this phenomena may indeed happen in other mountainous regions but not specifically in the Rockies?

Thank you!!

[haeeunjee]

Hello,

I just wanted to ask a quick question - I was a bit wary about B because it talks about “other mountains regions” and not specifically about the Rocky Mountains that the premise talks about. I am usually vary wary of answer choices that do not accurately match the specific wording of the text. Doesn't this answer choice slightly raise the possibility that this phenomena may indeed happen in other mountainous regions but not specifically in the Rockies?

Thank you!!

Hi, answer choices to Strengtheners/Weakener questions can seem a little out there. That's just something we need to keep in mind; they might seem out of scope in terms of subject matter, but if they still strengthen a teeny bit the connection between the premise and the conclusion, then they are indeed Strengtheners! In this case, "other mountainous regions" is actually not far off subject matter, since Rockies are also mountainous regions. But further than this, the relationship between the premise and conclusion is strengthened: the contention that a place that sees warmer temperatures will then experience melting of snowpacks / flooding.

An example comes to mind: #37, Sec. 2, Question 20. The one on Antartic seals that store oxygen in blood vessels and spleens. You will notice that one of the supporting answer choices is something like "Horses store oxygen in their spleens." You may be thinking horses?! I thought we were talking about seals?! Yes, but horses are an example of an animal/mammal that can store blood in its spleen, so that still supports the conclusion. Here is the question discussion in the forum: https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t2222.html

[LaurenP895]

I was under the impression the conclusion was stating a probable cause, and so I just realized I don't know how I would strengthen a probable cause. I know that the most effective ways to weaken a probable cause argument are to either show reversal of relationship is possible, or show statistical problem, etc. I was wondering if the same goes for strengthening (just the opposite way)??

[snoopy]

I didn't find Christine's explanations satisfying as to why C & D (mostly C) are wrong. I don't agree that C is wrong purely because it describes two different subsets/regions because I don't think it's completely relevant to the main argument. Even if parts of the Rockies don't represent the entirety of the Rockies, it's not really what the climatologist was targeting in his argument.

The conclusion and premises in the argument are trying to establish a causal relationship between temperature increases leading to melting of snowpacks which lead to more flooding + less storage water. The stimulus says "winter temperatures increase...will cause a greater precipitation." C & D are phrased similarly in that they establish a correlation. These answers do not attempt to link the causal relationship of mild winters to melting of snowpacks, more flooding, and less storage water.

B, however, does try to link the causal relationship. It states "melting of snowpacks LED" to more flooding and less storage water after mild winters.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for the post, snoopy!

I'm afraid you've misunderstood my complaint about (C) - I never meant to imply that it was wrong because raising a subset of the Rocky Mountains could be unrepresentative of the entire Rocky Mountain area. I don't think that's accurate at all. After all, (B) only raises a subset of 'mountainous regions' that may not be representative of all mountainous regions. That's not a problem, for any of the answer choices.

The objection to (C) is that the comparison is irrelevant.

The original argument compares some area now to its future self. It's talking about some location where temperatures increase over time. (B) is also talking about some area where temperatures increase over time.

(C) and (D), however, are not talking about some area where temperatures increase over time. They are both talking about some area that is warmer than some other area. The comparison of two different areas to one another does not match the original argument, as the original argument (and (B)), compare the now-temps of an area to the future temps of the same area.

To be very clear - talking about a subset is not wrong. But it IS wrong that it compared two different subsets to one another, instead of sticking with one subset and making THAT subset increase in temperature all by itself.



I think it's great, however, that you've noted that noted that the original argument is attempting to make a causal argument, and that the example in (B) very helpfully establishes a clear causal connection between melting snowpacks and the greater flooding/less storable water. (B) does not, however, actually establish a clear causal line from milder winters (in the same location over time) to melting snowpacks, which would have been even more helpful. It only establishes a correlation between milder winters (in the same location over time) and melting snowpacks - but that's okay!

It's still pretty helpful, because there's a really important thing to remember about causation/correlation when dealing with strengthen/weaken questions. While correlation does not prove causation (the source of many flawed arguments), correlation absolutely serves as evidence for causation. As such, a correlation can totally strengthen a causation argument. This kind of answer shows up occasionally on LSAT questions as a correct strengthener answer - reinforcing or adding more weight to the correlation evidence.

But this does present a bit of a problem for your objection to (C) and (D). You're 100% correct that neither (C) nor (D) establish a causative line, they merely lay out a correlation. However, since correlation is well-accepted as a potential strengthener for causation arguments, that alone cannot possibly make these answers wrong. Best case scenario, if there were nothing else objectionable about (C) and (D), it would mean that all three of these answers strengthened, and we'd be trying to decide which one strengthened MORE. That would be incredibly annoying. Fortunately, the LSAT doesn't give us that task!

And that's the point where we have to turn back to the content of (C) and (D) and re-assess what correlation they are really establishing, and do both sides of the correlation really match what the original argument was trying to connect.

[snoopy]

Thanks for the quick reply, Christine! I totally understand where you're coming from now. I was misunderstanding your mentioning of the subsets, but now I see that C and D are wrong because of the 1) comparison of the regions with mild winters and regions with colder winters (different regions and not the same location), and 2) comparing the same present region at its present temperature levels vs. the same region after future temperature increases. Thank you for clarifying the difference between B and C/D; it helped me a lot.

I mentioned the causal relationship in the original argument and answer choice B because having B state the causation of temperature increases on flooding + less storage water is stronger than saying there's a correlation. Correlation does provide evidence towards causation. B says the melting of snowpacks leads to flooding + less storage water, so I read that as the relationship is definite (stronger) and not speculative like a correlation in C and D.

And just to make sure, the "temperature increase" in B is implied in "after relatively mild winters," right?

[LolaC289]

Christine's reply really helps. It's subtle point to notice the stimulus is about strengthen a TENDENCY, tempting choices (C), (D) are about COMPARISON.

But honestly, I think this is one of the harder strengthening questions. Don't beat yourselves up if you got this one wrong.

PREMISE: [accepted as true so no reason to strengthen this link]
Global warming -> Winter temperature increases -> More rain than snow precipitates in Rocky

CONCLUSION:
Rocky snowpack melt more quickly -> Great spring flooding and less storable water to meet summer demands.

This is strange at first sight because no obvious gap jumped out at me. This is just like a science preach/ statement of a set of facts. But I was thinking maybe the correct answer will address the missing mechanism from the pre. to the con., and that is:

Global warming/ Winter temperature increases/ More rain than snow precipitates in Rocky
WILL LEAD TO
Rocky snowpack melt more quickly/ Great spring flooding and less storable water to meet summer demands.

......And it gets even weirder because (B) (C) (D) all seems to be doing the job.

(A) is wrong because Global warming -> more Rain precipitation is ALREADY stated in the premise. We accepted it as true already. And it doesn't clarify WHICH precipitation would become more (rain or snow?), so it doesn't even boost up the premise.

(E) is wrong because it is just STATING what is in the conclusion, which is what needs to be strengthened. Also, "larger" snowpack is irrelevant, we only care about if it melt more quickly.

Although (C) and (D) are both addressing the mechanism from the premise to the conclusion, they are both wrong because they are, just like Christine's first post mentioned, COMPARING different places.

(C) is saying: In places where winter is milder, summer storage water are less to meet demand than places not so mild.

(D) is saying: In places where winter is the mildest, summer storage water are less to meet demand than places not so mild.

However, our stimulus is about mild winter leads to less summer storage water (in the same spot). These two are not doing their job.

Do we know that winter IS GETTING MILDER in those places? And as a result summer storage water BECOMES LESS to meet demand?

No.

Only (B) says this.

Consider this:

The argument: As one gets older, one gets wiser.

(B) is like: Lily is older this year than last year, and she is wiser this year.
(C) is like: Lily's elder sister (obviously, elder) is smarter than Lily.
(D) is like: The Yeti man who is 1000 years old (the "mildest" winter) is so much smarter than Lily.

With (C) and (D), we can still argue: Hey, but as Lily getting older, Lily is NOT getting wiser.

(B) is the only one that strengthens.

[WesleyC316]

The discussion in this thread has been awesome!

I actually referred to different prep materials and found an interesting phenomenon that each and every one of them used a different reason to eliminate (C).

7sage JY: Stating the two ends of a causal chain doesn't help us that much.
Powerscore: "This answer choice offers a correlation between relatively mild winters and less storable water, but does not establish a causal relationship between the two."
Princeton: "This does not address the early melting of the snowpack or increased spring flooding."
Manhattan (Christine): Places are different.

I personally agree with JY and Christine here. First of all, when you're using the two elements in a causal chain to strengthen it, at least pull out the two "nearer" ones. Merely knowing the initial phenomenon and the result doesn't prove a thing. We don't know if there's a different story in the middle of it. Secondly, the places are different, so we don't know what the amount of storable water is supposed to be in the respective areas------maybe there's just more water to begin with and has nothing to do with the causal chain. The stimulus talks about what happens when the temperature changes in one single location.

And I think that's the brilliance of LSAT writers. They make up attractive wrong answer choices with multiple weaknesses, so when you get the question wrong they wouldn't have to argue with you about one subtle controversial point since there are plenty.

Of course sometimes the questions show the sadness of LSAT, like the 4th game in PT72. But I think they've done a pretty good job regarding this LR question. Just a thought!