#20 - Unusually large and intense forest fires swept the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True—CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

The stimulus contains a fact set discussing the possible causes for the large forest fires that swept the tropics in 1997. The second sentence establishes the following causal relationship:

Cause Effect/Cause Effect

Fact: Strong El Nino Drought Tropics susceptible to fire

This relationship is stated as a fact; the last sentence, however, represents an opinion:

Cause Effect/Cause Effect

Opinion: Air pollution Global warming Strong El Nino

The distinction between fact and opinion is crucial on the LSAT, especially in Must Be True stimuli where the correct answer choice must satisfy the strict parameters of the Fact Test. Since formulating a suitable prephrase is likely to prove challenging, try the process of elimination: any answer choice that cannot be proven by reference to the information contained in the stimulus will be incorrect.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice conflates fact and opinion. While many scientists clearly believe that air pollution was responsible for the intensity of the El Nino, this is an opinion, not a factual claim. The stimulus does not establish a causal link between air pollution and the forest fires as a matter of fact.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice conflates causal with conditional reasoning:

• S N
  
  Strong El Nino Forest fires
  
  Contrapositive: Forest fires Strong El Nino

While we know that the El Nino caused the tropics to be susceptible to fire, there is no reason to believe that the El Nino was a necessary condition for the forest fires. Also, beware of hypotheticals and speculative claims when answering Must Be True questions: more often than not, such claims are impossible to prove.

Answer choice (C): Whether forest fires are generally more intense than usual during a strong El Nino is also impossible to prove with the limited information we have. While this was true in 1997, we have no evidence of a correlation between the two (1997 could have been a fluke).

Answer choice (D): This is an attractive answer choice, because it avoids making a factual claim and instead refers to what scientists believe to be true. However, just because they hold a certain belief (air pollution enhanced the strength of the El Nino) does not mean that they believe an implication of that belief (air pollution was responsible for the strong fires). Careful examination of the last sentence in the stimulus shows that scientists only believe in the following causal relationship:

Cause Effect

Opinion: Air pollution Strong El Nino

Even if the unusually strong El Nino made the tropics susceptible to fire, the latter is a factual claim, not an opinion. There is no evidence that the scientists mentioned in the last sentence also believe in factual claims outlined earlier. This answer choice conflates fact and opinion and is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Here, the author does not automatically assume that the scientists are correct in their belief about what enhanced the strength of the El Nino. But if they are correct, then their opinion becomes a matter of fact, which allows us to make additional inferences based on what else we know to be true as a matter of fact. So, if it is true that air pollution enhanced the strength of the El Nino, and it is also true that the El Nino contributed to a widespread drought, then it logically follows that the air pollution contributed to the drought:

Cause Effect/Cause Effect

If opinion = fact: Air pollution Strong El Nino Drought

[lday4]

E makes sense as the correct answer here, but can you confirm that my reasoning on why A & D are incorrect is sound? The causal chain created in the stimulus does not account for unusually large and intense forest fires, just that the tropics were susceptible to fire at the time. A & D try to say that the largeness and intenseness of the fires were caused by factors noted in the stimulus which is why they're wrong.

Thanks!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Great job with this one! Yep, your reasoning is right on.

[akalsi]

Hi,

I just wanted to make sure my understanding of why answer choice E is the right answer is correct.

My understanding of the stimulus is as follows:

Air Pollution (cause) global warming (effect/cause) enhances strength of the El Nino (effect/cause) widespread drought (effect/cause) tropics susceptible to fire at that time (effect)

Basically I understand this as one long chain of cause and effects where one factor brings out an effect and that in turn causes something else to occur/happen.

From my understanding of the causal chain I made, the reason why answer choice E is correct is because it essentially shows the first three parts of that chain without that second part - whereby if air pollution did result in the effect of strengthening the El Nino than indirectly it also contributed/caused the widespread drought.

Am I right to make that big of a causal chain in this question, or did I make too many assumptions here? And is my reasoning for answer choice E right?

Thank you in advance!

[David Boyle]

Hi,

I just wanted to make sure my understanding of why answer choice E is the right answer is correct.

My understanding of the stimulus is as follows:

Air Pollution (cause) global warming (effect/cause) enhances strength of the El Nino (effect/cause) widespread drought (effect/cause) tropics susceptible to fire at that time (effect)

Basically I understand this as one long chain of cause and effects where one factor brings out an effect and that in turn causes something else to occur/happen.

From my understanding of the causal chain I made, the reason why answer choice E is correct is because it essentially shows the first three parts of that chain without that second part - whereby if air pollution did result in the effect of strengthening the El Nino than indirectly it also contributed/caused the widespread drought.

Am I right to make that big of a causal chain in this question, or did I make too many assumptions here? And is my reasoning for answer choice E right?

Thank you in advance!

Hello akalsi,

"Air Pollution (cause) global warming (effect/cause) enhances strength of the El Nino (effect/cause) widespread drought (effect/cause) tropics susceptible to fire at that time (effect)" seems close to correct, though remember, air pollution is only something that "Many scientists believe", so we don't know if it's true or not.
That's part of why answer E is correct. "If air pollution enhanced the strength of the El Niño in 1997", emphasis on the "If", acknowledges that the air-pollution claim is a little hazy, and assumes only for the moment that the pollution really did enhance El Niño, and, as you say, triggers the other effects (drought etc.).

Hope this helps,
David

[avengingangel]

Wow, what a tricky question! (Of course, once you realize the right answer, it seems so easy...)

I'm also here to clarify/confirm my reasoning.

A,C, and D all seem incorrect for the same reason: it's connecting/linking the size and intensity of the forest fires to the components that are a part of the Cause & Effect chain, which is not necessarily true according to the information presented in the stimulus.

B seems wrong because it's Mistaken Negation.

E, being the last AC, is correct essentially because it deals with components in the C&E chain, and provides a valid conditional statement ('conditional' relating to the point made earlier that just because 'Many scientists believe' does not mean the argument considers that as truth).

Is that all correct??

I say this is a tricky question because I feel I have not encountered many C&E questions/arguments that include information in the stimulus that is not (necessarily) connected to the C&E relationship(s), and then subsequently test the test-takers on our ability to discern that (sometimes) subtle relationship.

Thanks !!!!!!!

[David Boyle]

Wow, what a tricky question! (Of course, once you realize the right answer, it seems so easy...)

I'm also here to clarify/confirm my reasoning.

A,C, and D all seem incorrect for the same reason: it's connecting/linking the size and intensity of the forest fires to the components that are a part of the Cause & Effect chain, which is not necessarily true according to the information presented in the stimulus.

B seems wrong because it's Mistaken Negation.

E, being the last AC, is correct essentially because it deals with components in the C&E chain, and provides a valid conditional statement ('conditional' relating to the point made earlier that just because 'Many scientists believe' does not mean the argument considers that as truth).

Is that all correct??

I say this is a tricky question because I feel I have not encountered many C&E questions/arguments that include information in the stimulus that is not (necessarily) connected to the C&E relationship(s), and then subsequently test the test-takers on our ability to discern that (sometimes) subtle relationship.

Thanks !!!!!!!

Hello avengingangel,

B does seem like a Mistaken Negation of sorts.
Answer C leaves out the part about drought.
Answers A and D are almost as you say, but not quite. The fires are part of the cause-and-effect chain, after all; the problem is the "scientists believe" thing. Answers A and D leap to the conclusion that air pollution, or belief about it, is necessarily linked to the forest fires.

Hope this helps,
David

[chance123]

Hi, Powerscore,

I have some questions about answer choice B, whereby it mentions the size and intensity of the fire. Clearly, That is wrong. However, the explanation confuses me, where it says answer choice B conflates a causal relationship with a conditional relationship.

In stimulus, we acknowledge that " Strong EL Nino (cause) Forest more susceptible to Fire"
If this is a casual relationship, we can safe to say if the cause does not happen, the effect would not happen either. Therefore, I don't think there is some Mistaken Negation happens here. The problem is that the "no cause, then no effect" reasoning happens only when the casual relationship is not a partial causal relationship, nor a probable causal relationship here. But from the stimulus, we can not eliminate such possibility.

But this confuses me again. When could we believe the causal relationship is a one-to-one relationship rather than a partial or probable casual relationship? Since in this case, I can't tell any clue that the causal relationship is not a one-to-one relationship.

Please let me know where I am wrong.
Thank you in advance!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Chance,

Be careful with whether the stimulus is making a broad causal statement or a narrow one. This stimulus is making a narrow causal statement. It says that in 1997, the susceptibility to fire in the tropics was caused by an unusually strong El Nino. This means that for this particular year in the tropics, we know that El Nino caused the susceptibility to fire. But since this is only one year and one place, we don't know whether (in other places, at other times, under different conditions) there are other causes of susceptibility to fire (beyond El Nino). To determine that there is one single cause with no others (and all the implications of that), we'd need much stronger language. So just remember that when the stimulus establishes a cause of something in a particular circumstance at a particular time, then we only know about that circumstance and that time. We can't extrapolate to a broader relationship that this particular cause is the only one. That's why answer choice (B) is ultimately incorrect. What if El Nino hadn't happened in the tropics in 1997? Maybe something else (one of the other causes of fire susceptibility that we know could exist) would've been present that could've caused forest fires. There's just no way for us to know that.

I hope this helps!