LSAT 118 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q14

LR Question 14 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Insufficient rain can cause crops to falter …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The weather was an important cause of the crisis.

REASONING: Little rain can cause failing crops and high food prices. During this crisis, the crops failed and the prices rose, so the government had to take over food distribution.

ANALYSIS: Notice the switch from the reasoning to the conclusion.

The reasoning only tells us that insufficient rain can cause crops to fail and food prices to rise.

Because they saw these conditions, the argument then concludes that the weather must have played an important role in causing it.

The problem is that the evidence only establishes a possible explanation. Lots of things besides insufficient rain could have caused crop failures or food shortages:

• Plant disease
• War
• Trade disruptions
• Transportation failures
• Economic collapse
• Government mismanagement

The author never rules out any alternatives. They identify a plausible cause for certain effects, and then say those effects must be due to that plausible cause.

___________

1. The argument never says there actually was a period of insufficient rain. That’s precisely the issue, so this misdescribes the evidence.
2. The debate isn’t whether the government overreacted. We’re not arguing whether or not the government should have taken over.
3. “Crisis” is used in the same way throughout, referring to food shortages.
4. CORRECT. The author establishes only that insufficient rain could have produced the observed events. Then they conclude that weather did play an important role. So the flaw is: Possible cause → actual cause.
5. There’s no conditional logic in the reasoning. Weather isn’t sufficient to cause crop failure or rising prices; it’s just identified as a plausible cause.