LSAT 29, Logical Reasoning I, Q17, LSATHacks

LR Question 17 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Columnist: It is impossible for there to be real…

QUESTION TYPE: Flaw

CONCLUSION: It is impossible for there to be real evidence that lax radiation standards at nuclear reactors caused cancer.

REASONING: Who can say what causes a particular case of cancer? 

ANALYSIS: This argument makes a common error. It’s very hard to say what causes an individual case of cancer. But if I see very high rates of cancer in the population around a nuclear power plant then maybe I could find some evidence that radiation was the cause.

We can have evidence that radiation increases the likelihood of cancer in a population even if it’s impossible to pinpoint causes in an individual. 

___________

1. CORRECT. Statistical evidence refers to cancer rates in the whole population. That could let us blame radiation standards. 
2. Actually the argument is assuming that what follows (cancer) was not caused by what came before (radiation). Or at least it’s assuming we can never find evidence.
3. The argument hasn’t specified what caused a particular case. It actually said we can never specify the cause of a particular case. 
4. This would be a criticism of someone who thought that the radiation did cause cancer. This columnist says he has no clue what causes it. 
5. The columnist did not say that radiation did not cause cancer. He said we could never have real evidence to prove it. 

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.