QUESTION TEXT: Sociologist: Climate and geology determine where human…
QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported
- Big shifts in climate cause migration.
- Migration mixes ideas, which is necessary for quick advances in civilization.
ANALYSIS: There isn’t really much we can do with these two statements. Shifts in climate don’t necessarily lead to advances in civilization. And intermingling of ideas could happen without shifts in climate.
The correct answer simply rephrases point one. If shifts in climate cause migrations then people will only stay settled (and not migrate) where the climate doesn’t shift too much.
- We only know climate can be a cause. There could be other more important causes
- We only know some climactic shifts can lead to more civilization. But some other shifts might simply be disastrous.
- CORRECT. If there were drastic shifts in climate then the populations would move and wouldn’t stay settled.
- We have no idea if populations settle everywhere they could settle.
- Intermingling ideas is only a necessary condition for advanced civilization, not a sufficient condition.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
In the same way one had to make a supposition with (c) that populations don’t migrate if there is an unstable climate (ignoring all other factors of why migrations may happen), I feel like one could do the same with (a). The stimulus does say the drastic shifts ALWAYS result in migration, so why is it too much to assume that climate is not the primary cause of migration?
FounderGraeme Blake says
Look at it this way:
1. Drastic shifts always cause migration
2. But, perhaps drastic shifts are not common. So, other causes of migration (war, famine, disease, opportunity, etc) are more common.
That’s why C is supported and not A. C says only that a stable population requires no shifts. It doesn’t say how often the shifts happen. Whereas A requires shifts to be happening constantly, so that climate is the major cause.
In our times, climate certainly causes migrations, but it is far from the primary cause.
But C is a bit of an inference, you have to make, right? I felt it was taking the statement in the stimulus a little too far: just because climate change causes migration, that doesn’t necessarily mean that people will stay at a place if the climate is stable (there could be many other reasons; pollution, crops, etc.) Do you see what I’m saying? The only way I feel this could be the correct answer is because it’s not a Must Be True question, but rather a Most Strongly Supported Question. (and also because all the other ACs are clearly wrong) Is all of my reasoning right here? I’d just like to make sure. Thanks !!
TutorLucas (LSAT Hacks) says
From the stimulus we know that “drastic shifts in climate always result in migration”. That’s conditional reasoning:
Drastic shift in climate — > Migration
~Migration –> ~Drastic shift in climate
This answer choice says:
(1) Population remains settled –> Climate stable
(2) ~Climate stable –> ~ Population does not remain settled
Note how these statements match the conditional reasoning in the stimulus.
“~Climate stable” [Answer Choice] is equivalent to “Drastic shift in climate” [Stimulus]
Thanks for your clear explanation. It makes sense to me, I guess I just feel that it’s a bit more of equivocation rather than equivalence that NOT stable weather would mean DRASTIC shift in climate (i.e. there could be a small change)
TutorLucas (LSAT Hacks) says
I see your point, but I don’t think it’s a far reach to equate drastic and unstable change. The stability they’re referring to, after all, just denotes moderate changes.
Also, we don’t need a perfect fit since it’s a most strongly supported question.
ah good point, thanks. plus yea this is better than all the other answer choices ! thanks.