LSAT 149 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Meteorologist: The number of tornadoes reported annual…

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: The actual number of tornadoes has probably not increased.

REASONING: We can find tornadoes more easily than before. This would naturally increase the number of tornadoes reported. So the increase in tornado reports doesn’t mean the actual number increased.

ANALYSIS: This is an okay argument already. It employs an important LSAT principle – the number of reports doesn’t always equal the actual number of something that exists. More reports doesn’t always mean more tornados. We could just be better at reporting.

However, the argument could still use a bit of work. The meteorologist gave a reason for why they might not have increased, but he didn’t directly give any evidence that tornados did not increase. We can strengthen the argument by showing evidence tornados actually weren’t increasing.

___________

1. So? We care about the number of tornados, not the damage done by the average tornado.
    
   If you had double the number of tornados, each causing the same average amount of damage, you’d have double the damage. But the average damage hasn’t changed. That scenario is consistent with this answer bu weakens the argument.
2. This mildly weakens the argument. It sounds like there actually are more tornados hitting population centers, so it isn’t just reports. This answer talks about the actual number.
    
   I say mildly weakens because we population centers have grown in size and number since the 1950s. So, even if the number of tornados was the same, you’d expect more tornado hits on population centers since the attack surface is larger.
    
   But on balance this does weaken the argument by showing an increase in the actual number of tornado hits.
3. CORRECT. Reporting can be biased. You’d expect reporting for large and medium sized tornados to be very good. People tend to notice if a large tornado forms and destroys an entire neighbourhood.
    
   Think about it. You would expect reports of large tornados to be accurate. It’s hard to miss a large tornado. Whereas, without good reporting, you could easily miss small tornados.
    
   So, a new more precise reporting system could increase the amount of small tornado reports. Even if there are no more actual tornados.
    
   If there really were more tornadoes, you’d expect tornados of all types to increase, including large and medium. Since that didn’t happen, it’s likely we merely improved reporting and caught more small tornados. This strongly supports the author’s argument.
4. This is like answer B. It mildly weakens the argument. If there are more tornado deaths, then maybe there actually are more tornados?
    
   Sure, it could be that tornado deaths are up because the population is up since the 1950s. But we have to take an answer at its worst, and this one suggests there could be an actual tornado increase.

5. This shows that tornadoes have stayed in the same areas, but not that the number has stayed constant. There could be more tornadoes hitting the same prevalent areas. Consider this scenario:

   • 1950s: Tornados mostly hit Texas. 1,000 tornados a year
   • Now: Tornados mostly hit Texas. 10,000 tornados a year.

   This scenario is 100% consistent with this answer, and yet is devastating for the argument. You have to take an answer at its weakest.

Recap: The question begins with “Meteorologist: The number of tornadoes reported annual”. It is a Strengthen question. Learn more about LSAT Strengthen questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.