Q4 - Scientist: While studying centuries-old

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Atmospheric pollution caused global temperatures to rise.
Evidence: There were some years in the 1500s that had both severe atmospheric pollutants and high global temperatures.

Answer Anticipation:
It's the classic Correlation to Causality template, only this time for climate change deniers! When the flaw is a move from correlation to causality, you can call them out on that exact bad move, you can point to an alternate explanation for the correlation, or you can attack the plausibility of the author's cause->effect story.

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Did the author need to assume this? No, because her argument isn't about whether global warming is good or bad. It's only about whether pollution caused global temps to rise in the 1500s.

(B) Did the author make a conclusion that was about a broader group than her evidence? No. The conclusion is about "this case", so the author is only talking about these years in the 1500s.

(C) This is almost the same as (B). The conclusion wasn't universal; it was about "this case".

(D) It's true that the author does do this, but this doesn't represent a reasoning problem with the argument. You rarely see an answer choice like this on flaw. It IS something that the author assumed, but it's not a complaint we would have about the author's MOVE from premise to conclusion. It is merely attacking the truth of the premise, which is not LSAT's thinking game.

(E) The author DOES infer that one phenomenon causes another (pollution caused the global warming in the 1500s) merely from (on the basis of) the claim that pollution and global warming "coincided" (were associated) with each other.

Takeaway/Pattern: This correct answer simply described the correlation to causality move. To clarify, a correlation between two things certainly STRENGTHENS or SUGGESTS the idea that two things have a causal connection. But it doesn't provide certainly, so authors are hasty to say "IT IS CLEAR that pollution caused global temps to rise".

#officialexplanation

[sumukh09]

This is a flaw question and contains one of the more common flaws associated with flaw question types. It's a case of X and Y correlating with another which leads the author of the stimulus to conclude that X causes Y. And of course, correlation never implies causation. We're looking for an answer choice that conceptualizes the notion that correlation is not equivalent to causation.

Answer choice E) is the correct response to this question as it states that the stimulus inappropriately "infers, merely from a claim that two phenomena are associated, that one phenomenon causes the other."

Moreover, because pollution merely coincided with high global temperatures does not enable one to make the claim that pollution caused high global temperatures; this is an error in reasoning.

A) is incorrect because the stimulus does not presume that global temperature rising is harmful; also has no bearing on the conclusion

B) It's not clear what the sample size is in this case, "centuries-old Antarctic ice deposits" isn't enough to make the argument that the sample size is too small or unrepresentative

C) It doesn't do this.

D) Again, what method did the Scientist use? We're not sure, so we can't say it was unreliable.

[tommywallach]

Hey Sumukh,

Really great work here! You correctly identified this question as a classic causation/correlation question, and your take on the answer choices is spot on. A couple things I'd add:

C) might be tempting, because it does use facts about a certain period of time (1500s) to make a claim, but that claim is ALSO about that period. If you read the passage, it concludes "it is clear in this case that atmospheric pollution did cause global temperatures to rise." That conclusion would not qualify as a universal claim, because it's just as temporally limited as the premise itself.

Also, just be aware that they can describe a causation/correlation flaw in multiple ways. For example, another correct answer could have read: "neglects to address the possibility that an increase in global temperature might be the root cause of atmospheric pollution, due to the release of gases trapped in melting ice sheets". It may look much more specific, even out of scope, but that is also an error the argument makes (using the correlation of X and Y to conclude that X causes Y ignores the possibility that Y is causing X!).

Great work!

-t