Q4 - Data from satellite photographs

[b91302310]

I swing between the answer choices (B) and (D). Although I felt that (B) is the typical answer (undermining the claim by offering another cause of the effect), I still chose (D) in order to challenge the validity of data.

For (D), is this incorrect because it does not matter whether we can confirm the data?

Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Your analysis is exactly right.

The reason why we do not need to confirm the data is that the conclusion is an explanation for an observed phenomenon. The argument says that the data indicate that the increased efforts to halt the deforestation are proving effective. To weaken the conclusion we need to undermine what the data indicate, not whether they're accurate.

This a common structure you'll see on the LSAT, so be ready to stick to the script when it comes to undermining causation on the LSAT.

Hope this helps...

[goriano]

The reason why we do not need to confirm the data is that the conclusion is an explanation for an observed phenomenon.

Could you please elaborate on this? I have a vague idea of what you're getting at, but I can't seem to put it into words. I know that we're trying to undermine what the data indicates, but doesn't what the data indicate itself depend on the data's accuracy in order for the government to make the claim that their efforts are proving effective?

Also, I was tempted by (E) as well and wanted to know how you were able to eliminate that answer choice. Thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

Not being able to confirm the data does not take away from what the original data was indicating. Even if it turns out that the original data was wrong, we want to show the leap that was taken from going with the original data given and going to the conclusion this person did.

As for choice (E), much money out of the millions spent is not going to weaken the idea in any significant way that the enforcement of laws is what caused the lower rate of deforestation.

This is not helping us weaken the idea that enforcement was the cause of the lower rate.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Exactly right Timmy!

Logical reasoning is the evaluation of arguments, which is really the evaluation of the space between the evidence and the conclusion, not the truth of either claim on their own.

So the question is, does the reduction of the rate of deforestation establish the conclusion that the Melonian government's efforts have been effective? Not really. The reduction in the rate of deforestation could be the result of many possible explanations, such as the Melonian government's efforts, a higher than usual amount of rainfall, a decreased demand for farmland, a decreased demand for lumber, etc. Answer choice (B) simply points this out.

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(A) might even strengthen the argument as it suggests the government is taking steps to reduce deforestation. Though this is a long way from proving the Melonian government's claim.
(C) suggests that there is a problem with deforestation, but doesn't help us get to whether the government's efforts are having an impact.
(D) may be tempting, but we do not need to confirm the evidence, as there is no reason to doubt it. The question isn't whether there has been a reduction in the rate of deforestation, but rather what is responsible for that reduction.
(E) is irrelevant. The argument never suggested nor relied on the idea that money designated for forest preservation only went to enforcement.

Hope that helps!

[WaltGrace1983]

I was down to (D) and (B) as well but I got it through it by rereading the conclusion.

The conclusion is that "the satellite data indicate that its increased efforts...". It doesn't matter if the data is right or wrong. The author is merely saying that, even if right or wrong, it DOES indicate X.

To me, this would be very different than if the conclusion was only "Increased efforts to halt the destruction are proving effective." If that were the case, then we might be able to bring the reliability of the satellites into play, which makes (D) such a tempting answer.

How about that?

[maryadkins]

I think your hypothetical would make (D) a stronger answer but (D) still wouldn't be right, as in, it still wouldn't be stronger than (B) as a weakener. It simply suggests that the data hasn't been confirmed by a secondary source. Well, okay, but does that make it wrong? Maybe it's still entirely reliable. Just because it hasn't been seen by someone and "confirmed" by eye doesn't make necessarily wrong or even unreliable.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Exactly right Timmy!

Logical reasoning is the evaluation of arguments, which is really the evaluation of the space between the evidence and the conclusion, not the truth of either claim on their own.

So the question is, does the reduction of the rate of deforestation establish the conclusion that the Melonian government's efforts have been effective? Not really. The reduction in the rate of deforestation could be the result of many possible explanations, such as the Melonian government's efforts, a higher than usual amount of rainfall, a decreased demand for farmland, a decreased demand for lumber, etc. Answer choice (B) simply points this out.

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(A) might even strengthen the argument as it suggests the government is taking steps to reduce deforestation. Though this is a long way from proving the Melonian government's claim.
(C) suggests that there is a problem with deforestation, but doesn't help us get to whether the government's efforts are having an impact.
(D) may be tempting, but we do not need to confirm the evidence, as there is no reason to doubt it. The question isn't whether there has been a reduction in the rate of deforestation, but rather what is responsible for that reduction.
(E) is irrelevant. The argument never suggested nor relied on the idea that money designated for forest preservation only went to enforcement.

Hope that helps!

E) is tricky because it wants to bait us into thinking that the money that was allocated towards enforcement was not sufficient to effectively enforce anti-deforestation given that a lot of the money that was designated for enforcement was spent on research instead. However this assumption is unwarranted. In addition, we would have to presume that there exists a casual relationship between money spent and effectiveness of enforcement. In all, it just doesn't make it less likely that the enforcement was the cause.

[kkate]

Logical reasoning is the evaluation of arguments, which is really the evaluation of the space between the evidence and the conclusion, not the truth of either claim on their own.

This confuses me. Although rare, isn't it possible for correct answers to Weaken questions to address the validity of a claim made within the premise thereby making the support for the conclusion unreliable?

I have this in my notes I took from MLSAT books. I recall getting tricked on one question while doing practice sets. I used to think that what Matt said was always the case until when I looked at the explanations, this is what it said. That's when I started to keep that in mind while doing Weakening questions, becoming more aware of claims within premises. I also recall learning that when stats/data/surveys are given, look for answers that attack the validity of them.

I know this is an old PT so not expecting people to notice this post but any clarification on above will be MUCH appreciated! I want this cleared up before I move on further with my weakening practice drills.

Thank you in advance!
Kate