Q25 - The reasoning in the meteorologist's

[willaminic]

Hey, i picked right on this one , but i was still feeling C is also correct. IS it because the "only issue" was too strong in C? Help me please. Thanks.

[geverett]

Man this was not the easiest question. In fact the first run through of the answer choices had me leaving more contenders then I am comfortable with. Let's dive into it.

The first thing to note is the statistician clearly draws a conclusion about causation from a premise that only talks about a correlation. This, of course, is a common logical fallacy. Another noteworthy aspect here is that the meteorologist uses the word significant. While it might seem like common sense that land temperature would qualify as a "significant aspect" we know that we should never assume this to be the case and so should regard any assumptions not spelled out on the LSAT with suspicion. Also, while the statistician does make a claim of causation in the last sentence it is worthwhile to note he says luminosity "essentially controls" land temperature. This use of the word "essentially" does allow for the fact that, while he might be saying luminosity is one of the chief factors in land temperature, there could be other factors that play a role in controlling the land temperature. This would of course not warrant the Meteorologists rebuff in assuming the statistician is making a claim of a "single variable" as mentioned in the meteorologists last sentence.

I go to the questions with this in mind.

(A) We can break this up by dissecting each individual statement in between the commas. "Rejects a partial explanation" The statistician uses the language "essentially controls" which could mean that he/she allow for other factors to contribute or does not. As such we have no idea if the statistician is claiming a partial explanation or a complete explanation, and so we cannot allow an answer choice that turns an ambiguous claim into something very concrete. "not because it is incorrect" The meteorologist clearly thinks that the statisticians claim is incorrect. "because it is not complete" The meteorologist makes no claim about it being incomplete, and in fact believes that the statisticians claim of "essential control" precludes any other kind of causal factors and so wholly rejects the statisticians argument on the grounds that "no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable." Get rid of it.
(B) This answer choice is completely out of left field. The meteorologist is appealing to the opinion of experts in a relevant field to refute a causal claim of the statisticians, while at the same time assuming the statistician is making a claim of a single contributing variable when the meteorologists language is too ambiguous to assume this. Whether the suns luminosity is independent or exists as a part of the land temperature system makes no difference. Get rid of it.
(C) "Calls into question the correlation" The meteorologist does not question the correlation, but rather the causal claim the statistician makes. ". . . only real issue is how to interpret the correlation." This is a little bit too broad to extrapolate from the argument. While the point at issue is the causal claim the statistician makes from the correlation and the meteorologist denial of this, we really do not know anything about the meteorologists interpretation of the correlation other then his/her denial of a causal interpretation. Get rid of it.
(D) "Dismisses a hypothesis" The statistician does not hypothesize causation from a correlation. He definitely states it as a matter of fact. ". . . fails to deal with any matters of scientific significance." This is out of of left field. Of course anything having to do with climate, sun, land temperature, etc. is a matter of science. Get rid of this.
(E) This is it. The meteorologist only appeals to the authority of experts to draw his/her claim. While these are experts in a relevant field the meteorologist fails to lodge an argument against the statisticians reasoning in his/her claim.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation geverett!

This is another example where focussing on the argument is extremely valuable. The meteorologist's conclusion is that the sun's luminosity does not essentially control land temperatures on Earth. What does the meteorologist offer in support for this conclusion? Not much! Just that no meteorologist would tell you that this could happen.

So the meteorologist is essentially saying that something is true, because many other people would say that it's true - this is an appeal argument. I wouldn't say this is an appeal to an inappropriate authority, since meteorologists are experts in the field of weather patterns - the topic at hand.

But we are asked to find a ground on which we can claim this argument is weak. And we have to do this abstractly, since this is an Identify the Flaw question.

(A) fails to utilize the meteorologist's evidence. On Flaw questions, it's really important that the flaw describe a reasoning error committed between the evidence and the conclusion. Nowhere does the author say that the explanation is incomplete.
(B) is not supported since nowhere does the argument discuss phenomena that are completely within a system or completely outside of a system.
(C) should have said that it calls into question the existence of a causal connection, not a correlation, and even then it wouldn't be good enough. Since the argument simply says that the sun's luminosity is not the only causal factor. The meteorologist never says that the sun's luminosity does not contribute to the temperature on Earth.
(D) is not supported. The meteorologist does not say that the correlation between land temperaturtes and the sun's luminosity have nothing to do with each other, just that the system is more complicated than such a simple explanation. And where's the evidence that relates to the appeal to the meteorologists?


While answer choice (E) is not perfect, it is true that there is an appeal to the opinion of the meteorologists and never addresses the correlation between the sun's luminosity and land temperatures - a putative counterexample.

Hope that helps!