LSAT 21, Logical Reasoning I, Q25, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Statistician: Changes in the Sun’s luminosity…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

ARGUMENTS: The statistician points out that the Sun’s brightness is correlated with land temperatures on Earth. He therefore claims that the Sun’s brightness controls land temperature.

The meteorologist points out that a single factor can’t control a complicated system like our climate.

ANALYSIS: The meteorologist offers no evidence of his own and doesn’t try to dispute any of the statistician’s evidence. He just states a general principle.

The meteorologist could be right, but his argument isn’t very strong. A single example can disprove a general principle, so general principles can’t prove much on their own.

___________

1. The statistician said the Sun gave a full explanation. The meteorologist wasn’t rejecting an argument about a partial explanation.
2. This is a different error. An example would be if the meteorologist had implied that the sun was part of the climate, as opposed to an independent force that affects the climate.
3. The meteorologist didn’t say that the
   correlation between luminosity and land temperatures didn’t exist.
4. The meteorologist never said that the Sun and climate are insignificant.
5. CORRECT. The meteorologist presents no evidence apart from a principle. And he doesn’t attempt to argue against the statistician’s evidence.

Recap: The question begins with “Statistician: Changes in the Sun’s luminosity”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.

---