Q17 - On the basis of the

[perfectparadise1]

This question irritates me.

The correct answer is "E"

"An inconsistency that, as presented, has more than one possible resolution is treated as though only one resolution is possible."

My issue is with "ONE resolution is possible." The questions posits that either a severe climate warning OR volcanic activity" could have melted the ice sheets. Is the melting of the ice sheets the "ONE" possibility the answer refers to? I see how it makes sense but it still irritates me since we are given two possibilities of occurrences in the question both ending in one result though I guess.

To end this post without seeming like I just posted something to answer my own question and complain, is there an easier way to attack this question or reaiize the right answer?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think you are much closer than you think.

You are exactly right when you say that the "one possible resolution" is the melting of the ice sheets. The argument does provide several ways in which that could occur, but the "one possible resolution" is the melting due to either of those two events occurring.

I think a better way to look at this question and one that will benefit you as you move on to look at future questions is that the argument gives us as evidence several ways in which the ice sheets could have melted. And from this concludes that the ice sheets did melt.

The problem with reasoning like that is that it argues from something that is possible to something that has inevitably happened. Just because something could have happened, doesn't mean that it did!

You need to be able to describe in abstract reasoning what happened in the argument. I wouldn't have formulated my answer the way it is formulated in answer choice (E). Instead, i would have been looking for something that says just because something could have happened, doesn't mean that it did happen.

While this in not perfectly iterated in answer choice (E), it is fairly close. And obviously, is the correct answer.

(A) is not correct. We're not arguing that because people believed something happened, therefore it did. This is a flaw that is present in many LSAT logical reasoning questions, just not this one.
(B) is not correct. They're not saying that both severe weather and volcanoes couldn't have happened simultaneously.
(C) is a confusing answer choice. This one is simply saying that the argument has mistaken the determination that the ice sheets melted for the determination for what caused the ice sheets to melt. They never determined what caused the ice sheets to melt. They merely put forward to possible ways in which it could have, but never determined how exactly the ice sheets melted.
(D) is a typical answer choice if the argument tries to reach too far beyond what they have established. Arguing from specific and isolated cases to a general rule is not permitted logically, but that's not what is occurring in this argument.

Which answer choice were you looking at? Another way of tackling these flawed method questions is to first, describe in your own language what is wrong with the argument, and then look for the answer that most closely resembles your prephrased description.

[perfectparadise1]

Thank you so much for your insight. I chose B initially. I came in looking for an alternate cause. I know they don't preclude the possibility of both working in tandem but since the argument employs a co-ordinating conjunction, "or," I went with it.

[trevor.lovell]

I also had trouble with this question. I narrowed it down to D or E, went with D and hoped to come back if there was time.

My problem with E was that it said the inconsistency "as presented" has more than one possible resolution. However, the argument presents the inconsistency has having only one possible resolution.

My problem with D is that it refers to a narrow "range" of cases. I felt like the "claim" (that the ice sheet must have melted) was based on "evidence" (the newly discovered fossils) from only one case and decided this could be construed as a "restricted range."

I guess I'm having trouble knowing when the test-makers want me to assert that there are resolutions outside of those mentioned in the stimulus, and I thought the clause "as presented" was an instruction not to do so.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

That's a fair question. The good thing is that the LSAT actually plays by certain rules in that respect. If the conclusion of the argument is that there is only one possible solution, then question it. However if the evidence says that there is only one possible solution that concede it.

We're always looking to find the flaw in drawing the conclusion, we don't really care whether the evidence is true though. We simply take it as fact...

I hope that helps you in the decision process later on. That frame of mind is important for all question types in LR that require some sort of evaluation of the logic. These would include: strengthening, weakening, sufficient assumption, necessary assumption, principles, identify the flaw, and match the reasoning/flaw questions.

Good luck!

[peg_city]

I still don't get why D is wrong. A claim (Ice melted 3 million years ago) that has a very general application is based entirely on evidence from a narrowly restricted range of cases (fossils were found).

Thanks again

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

A bit more familiarity with the LSAT and answer choices like (D) won't be so tempting on questions like this one.

Answer choice (D) is a very common flawed pattern of reasoning. It simply states that the argument moves from specific, isolated incidents to a broader and more general claim. In order for this to be the correct answer, we would expect to see an argument that looks something like the following.

Upon observing penguins at the zoo, the caretaker noticed that each penguin experienced seasonal weight changes that corresponded with breeding season. Therefore this must be a common characteristic of penguins all over the world.

To move from a specific case to a general claim, should involve a switch from a subset to a larger class of the same characters.

In this argument, the conclusion is simply not a broader generalization made about several specific incidents of the same sort. The conclusion is about the ice melting, whereas the evidence is about fossils. These two groups don't even belong to the same class of individuals.

Does that answer your question?

[Shiggins]

I first chose B over E and see how E is right. But I am still confused of how B is wrong. After "After all" it states either/or. Doesn't that imply mutual exclusivity, that it is one or the other referring to climatic warming or volcanic activity. If someone can explain. Thank you.

[timmydoeslsat]

Great question Shiggins.

The after all part of the stimulus (near the end) states:

After all, either A or B COULD have melted.

Had this instead said, MUST have melted, we would have had to concede this to the argument like Matt said prior in this thread.

This sentence says that since either A or B could have happened, then the result those two produce MUST have happened.

The argument does not preclude other possibilities, so mutual exclusivity cannot be brought into this.

[joseph.m.kirby]

*EDIT*

I thought interpreting "either... or" as (not both) made this argument tighter. I realize that, for this argument to follow, "either... or" does not have to be interpreted in that way. Looking at the argument this way is probably overkill and I'm not trying to advocate that exclusive "either...or" is definitely on the test.

On another note, I don't believe we could say that the fossils are incorrectly dated as that would question the truth of one of the premise.

"[T]he Antarctic sheet temporarily melting" is actually an effect that stems from a cause. The stimulus gives two possible causes which could include either "severe climatic warming" or "volcanic activity." As a set of information, the combination of cause/causes and the effect could be considered as the only resolution put forward by the argument.

If another resolution were to be proposed, the effect would remain constant; however, the resolution would contain a new cause (or new causes). Other possible causes could include fluctuations in the Earth's orbit around the sun (which thereby led to the melting of the ice). In any case, for this problem, the resolution seems to be more dependent on interpretations of the cause (or causes) as opposed to just the effect (the effect is not a resolution in itself).


-----Original post is below----

For this particular question, the LSAT is testing one's understanding of the "either A or B" construction.

The Oxford English Dictionary explains "either ... or" as follows:
"The primary function of either, etc., is to emphasize the perfect indifference of the two (or more) things or courses ... ; but a secondary function is to emphasize the mutual exclusiveness, = either of the two, but not both."

Hence, in this case, the construction "either A or B" means A or B but not both (hence only ONE of the two).

In the stimulus, two possible resolutions are presented with this construction: each resolution is as likely as the other. However, the"either/or" construction precludes that both of these events are able to work in tandem. Thus, the argument fails to consider that resolution A or resolution B (or both) could have occurred.

[timmydoeslsat]

For this particular question, the LSAT is testing one's understanding of the "either A or B" construction.

The Oxford English Dictionary explains "either ... or" as follows:
"The primary function of either, etc., is to emphasize the perfect indifference of the two (or more) things or courses ... ; but a secondary function is to emphasize the mutual exclusiveness, = either of the two, but not both."

Hence, in this case, the construction "either A or B" means A or B but not both (hence only ONE of the two).

In the stimulus, two possible resolutions are presented with this construction: each resolution is as likely as the other. However, the"either/or" construction precludes that both of these events are able to work in tandem. Thus, the argument fails to consider that resolution A or resolution B (or both) could have occurred.

I disagree with you that for this question "either or" means mutual exclusivity. The arguer is saying that at least one of those two things could have happened to cause the melting, so the ice sheet was melted.

The argument's failing is that we do not have to have the ice melt. We could have the dating of the fossils to be in error.

The argument does not preclude both "could be" situations from happening together. The error in this argument, as stated above, is failing to rule out other possibilities.

[rosemerrychill]

I had a slightly different reasoning for why E is correct.

I thought the argument went

because 3m yr old fossils PREVIOUSLY found in ocean floor only, but now found in ice sheet, -> ice must have melted

i simply ignored the after all part because i viewed it as the same as additional info thats not part of the core.

returning to the core, just because 3m yr old fossils PREVIOUSLY found in ocean floor only, doesn't mean that this new one we discovered cannot be naturally in ice, so maybe the ice didn't melt?

am i questioning the premise by arguing with the PREVIOUSLY part?

[etwcho]

rosemerrychill,

I don't think you are contradicting the premise.

That particular premise states "3m year-old fossils of a kind previously found only in ocean-floor sediments..." You would contradicting the premise if you said "No, the fossil was previously discovered in places other than ocean-floor sediments."

What you did was interpreting the premise (and maybe making some assumptions that other explanations are equally plausible), not contradicting it.

That's a fair question. The good thing is that the LSAT actually plays by certain rules in that respect. If the conclusion of the argument is that there is only one possible solution, then question it. However if the evidence says that there is only one possible solution that concede it.

We're always looking to find the flaw in drawing the conclusion, we don't really care whether the evidence is true though. We simply take it as fact...

And love that advice. I really should tattoo that to my forearm....

[matthew.mainen]

What would be an example of a question being vulnerable to the type of criticism exhibited in choice C?

[christine.defenbaugh]

What would be an example of a question being vulnerable to the type of criticism exhibited in choice C?

That's an interesting question, matthew.mainen!

(C) would criticize an argument for "establishing that a certain event occurred is confused with having established the cause of that event."

So, this would apply to an argument that did establish the cause of an event (in the premise), but did not establish that the event actually occurred (but tried inaccurately to conclude it). One example might be:

The data clearly show that colds are always caused by walking around with wet hair. I saw Jamie walking around with wet hair last Saturday, and then she missed class on Monday. She obviously caught a cold, and that's why she missed class.

The premises establish that if someone has a cold, they must have walked around with wet hair (establishing the cause of the event "catch a cold"). However, we have not established that the event actually occurred!

Notice that this problem could be described as confusing the necessary and the sufficient clause as well. There are often multiple ways to describe an error.

Another example might look like this:

Joan must have gone to Vegas last week when she called out of work. Winning the lotto would have caused her to immediately leave for Vegas.

Here, we have established that the cause will always trigger the event, but we haven't established that either event actually happened. We don't know she won the lotto!

This pattern is very different from the stimulus. That argument does not establish the cause of the discussed event in any way. It does not establish a clear causal link, since the proposed causes are mere possibilities, nor does it establish that they actually occurred. The argument cannot confuse the conclusion with 'having established the cause of the event' since it never established either one!


Please let me know if this completely answers your questions!

[WaltGrace1983]

The way that I eliminated (C) was that it has it all backwards! The conclusion, as I understand it, is never established. That is the point! The author is arguing for the conclusion but, if the conclusion were established, it would merely be a fact and not something that you have to argue!

The cause of the event is NOT established. The author blatantly writes, "Either severe climactic warming or volcanic activity in Antarctica's mountains could have melted the ice sheet." This tells me that the author believes these as possibilities but he is not actually ESTABLISHING them as happened.

The "certain event" (sheet temporarily melting) has not been established. This "certain event" - the sheet temporarily melting - is the conclusion. It has NOT been established. Otherwise, we wouldn't have an argument about it.

That's how I saw it. I don't necessarily know that this is the right way to think about it but maybe it is.

(E) is very much so an LSAT-like answer. We have this inconsistency and, although there could have been many things that caused this inconsistency (maybe someone dug up the ice and put these fossils under it or maybe the ice formed over the fossils, etc.), the author is saying that "the ice shut MUST HAVE temporarily melted." It could have been many other things.

How's that?

[christine.defenbaugh]

The way that I eliminated (C) was that it has it all backwards! The conclusion, as I understand it, is never established. That is the point! The author is arguing for the conclusion but, if the conclusion were established, it would merely be a fact and not something that you have to argue!

The cause of the event is NOT established. The author blatantly writes, "Either severe climactic warming or volcanic activity in Antarctica's mountains could have melted the ice sheet." This tells me that the author believes these as possibilities but he is not actually ESTABLISHING them as happened.

The "certain event" (sheet temporarily melting) has not been established. This "certain event" - the sheet temporarily melting - is the conclusion. It has NOT been established. Otherwise, we wouldn't have an argument about it.

That's how I saw it. I don't necessarily know that this is the right way to think about it but maybe it is.

(E) is very much so an LSAT-like answer. We have this inconsistency and, although there could have been many things that caused this inconsistency (maybe someone dug up the ice and put these fossils under it or maybe the ice formed over the fossils, etc.), the author is saying that "the ice shut MUST HAVE temporarily melted." It could have been many other things.

How's that?

Awesome work WaltGrace1983!

(C) would be correct if the author had established one of these two things in the premise, and then concluded the other - since this author establishes neither, this answer won't work!

And excellent points about (E) - this is a classic PHENOMENON-EXPLANATION argument, where one explanation (ice melting) is assumed to be the only possible explanation.

Keep it going!

[Mab6q]

I choose E on my first go at it, but then changed to C on my review. That's terrible I know. I guess the mistake I made was thinking that the conclusion was established; that the ice was melted 3 million years ago. It's a good argument but it hasn't been established! In doing so I broke the number 1 rule of assumption questions: the conclusion will never be justified by the support. The last sentence is a red herring. Well played LSAT.

So for C, the event has not been established. For E, the answer choice is not talking about about the volcanic activity or the climate warming; it's instead talking about the established conclusion. That is one explanation but there could be others.

I just thought I'd share my thoughts.

[emily315]

This question is so confusing, I've read your guys comments for like two to four times but I'm still confused.
How is it possible that something under the icesheet in antarctica that was only found in the ocean floor before be caused not because of the melting of the ice and the flow of ocean over it? Please just give me a possibility.

[ohthatpatrick]

Couldn't an animal have swum underneath the ice sheet, died, and floated to the ocean floor underneath central Antarctica?

Or it died somewhere far away and unusually strong underwater currents propelled its body to the ocean floor underneath central Antarctica?

Maybe I'm interpreting ice sheet incorrectly, but it sounds like it just covers the surface of Antarctica. Isn't there still liquid water underneath it?

Another way to resolve the confusion is simply to say that even though we've previously only found these fossils in ocean floor sediments, the animal that gives us this fossil apparently also sometimes lives on the surface of ice, and could thus get buried in an ice sheet.

Say there was a flower that had previously only been found growing in tropical rainforests and then we suddenly saw a fossil of that flower in an Alpine meadow. Can we conclude with the author's level of certainty that the Alpine meadow where we found the flower was once a tropical rainforest?

Couldn't we humor the possibility that this flower actually just existed in more ecosystems than we realized before?