LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8950
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#36284
Complete Question Explanation

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

This stimulus is a fact set, and since there is no conclusion you should expect either a Must Be True
question, or, less likely, a Cannot Be True question.

The stimulus indicates that lack of rain is a cause of crop failure, and that subsequently a number of
businesses and individuals lose money. In short, uncontrollable factors such as lack of rain can cause
a chain of events that lead to loss of business and decreased profi ts for a wide variety of groups.

The question stem asks what can be logically inferred, so you must select a response that must be
true.

Answer choice (A): Just because several of the businesses that sell to farmers fail does not mean
that farming itself is not prospering. For example, farming could be prospering but a business might
be poorly run and consequently fail, or a business could be affected by other factors such as a
lawsuit or adverse conditions in other markets they sell to. Logically, this answer choice reverses the
relationship presented in the stimulus.

Answer choice (B): This choice might seem attractive, but it is wrong for several reasons. First, the
stimulus does not defi ne how much of a lack of rain causes crop failure, and below-average rainfall
might not necessarily cause crop failure (remember, below average can still be very close to average;
for example, if a locality receives an average of 100 inches of rain a year, an amount as high as 99
inches would be classifi ed as below average, and an amount that close to the average would be very
unlikely to cause crop failure).

Second, the stimulus simply noted that certain businesses are unable to make a profi t when farmer’s
crops fail. This answer improperly expands that group to include all business that profifi t from
farmers’ purchases (this includes any business—personal or commercial—a farmer might buy from,
including McDonald’s, the grocery store, etc.), and then indicates that those businesses tend to lose
money (which is also unknown).

Answer choice (C): The stimulus is not about who is responsible for the consequences of wheat crop
failure, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): The stimulus may support the idea that wheat crop failure can have far-reaching
economic consequences, but it does not support the idea that a dependence on agriculture can lead
to major economic crises. In simple terms, this answer fails the Fact Test because the ideas in this
answer are not addresses in the stimulus.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. As stated by the stimulus, a lack of rain (and
a drought is an extreme form of a lack of rain), can cause crop failure, and, according to the stimulus,
such failures have an impact beyond agriculture (specifi cally, truckers, mechanics, and fuel suppliers
are all affected).
 adlindsey
  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: Oct 02, 2016
|
#32168
I'm having trouble seeing why C is wrong.
 Kristina Moen
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: Nov 17, 2016
|
#32184
Hey there adlindsey,

Would you mind telling us more about your thought process there? What did you like about C, and what made you feel it was better than E? What was your prephrase for this question? We can probably help you more if we know more about what you're thinking on this one.
 saygracealways
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Apr 09, 2020
|
#78077
Hi Powerscore,

I understand why (E) is correct, but could you please help explain why (A) is incorrect.

I thought the causal chain is lack of rain :arrow: crops fail :arrow: fertilizer/seed dealers, truckers, mechanics lose business and fuel suppliers can't make a profit

Since this is a MBT question, we take the cause to be the only cause of the stated effect, so if several of the businesses that sell to farmers do not prosper (effect), it is because (cause) farming itself is not prospering (crops fail). Is this incorrect because "several of the businesses that sell to farmers" is really vague, meaning we can't assume that these businesses are the fertilizer/seed dealers, truckers, mechanics and fuel suppliers? They could be referring to other businesses that may not prosper because of another reason?
 grunerlokka
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: Jul 07, 2020
|
#78173
I hesitated about choosing E as a correct answer because "consequences" seemed to strongly imply causation, when what the stimulus presented seemed to me to be a part causation and part correlation (i.e when there is X it causes Y, and then W also happens, and Z also happens). Naturally I assumed that the loss of business and the inability to sell fuel etc were caused by a lack of rain by extension, but the part of me that internalised Powerscore's "correlation does not equal causation" made me very wary about making this leap! How do you recommend navigating this tension, specifically for this question.
User avatar
 KelseyWoods
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
|
#78876
Hi saygracealways and grunerlokka!

saygracealways: When we talk about taking causal reasoning to the logical extreme and assuming that the cause is the only cause for the stated effect, that really only applies to how we weaken/strengthen causal arguments. In fact, there doesn't have to be just one cause. It's just a simpler way of thinking about it when you are helping or hurting arguments, so that it's clearer as to why finding or eliminating alternate causes affects the argument in some way. But for a Must Be True question, we don't want to assume that there is only one cause for the stated effect.

It also might help to look at the conditional aspect of this stimulus ("when" is a sufficient indicator term).

Crops fail :arrow: other business lose business + fuel suppliers can't make a profit

Answer choice (A) is essentially a Mistaken Reversal of this relationship.

grunerlokka: For you, as well, I think it might help to conceptualize this stimulus in terms of its conditionality rather than just its causality. In fact, I think when you talk about the stimulus being part "correlation," you're really picking up on the fact that it is part conditional. Drought causes crops to fail. When the crops fail, the other businesses fail. So if the other businesses fail every time the crops fail, then, essentially, the drought would be causing both the failure of the crops as well as (indirectly) the failure of the other businesses.

You can break down the relationships in the stimulus into one causal statement and one conditional statement:

C: Lack of rain; E: Crops fail
Crops fail :arrow: Other businesses fail

Since lack of rain causes crops to fail and whenever crops fail, other businesses fail, then lack of rain indirectly causes the failure of other businesses as well.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
User avatar
 Desperatenconfused
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: Dec 08, 2023
|
#104637
I don’t understand why C is incorrect as well. I had eliminated A, B, and D due to irrelevancy. However, the reason I went with C is because for E, even if the stimulus did not include “uncontrollable” when explaining the favors like lack of rain, E would make sense. For example, if the stimulus was
“When factors such as lack of rain cause farmers’ wheat crops to fail, fertilizers and seed dealers, as well as truckers and mechanics, lose business, and fuel suppliers are unable to sell enough diesel fuel to make a profit,” then, E would fit right in.

So I pondered, why did the authors include the word “uncontrollable”? It must be because the author probably wants to argue that because factors like rain are uncontrollable, farmers must be excused from blame, since their wheat crops failing were out of their control.

I’m concerned that in future problems like this one, I’m going to rationalize it similarly. Can someone explain so I do not repeat this?
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1819
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#104838
Desperatenconfused,

"Uncontrollable" has no effect on the validity of answer choice (E). Consequences are consequences, whether their causes are themselves caused by uncontrollable or controllable factors.

Further, you're putting words into the author's mouth. The author is nowhere saying that farmers aren't responsible. Not only is that not mentioned, but anyone can be responsible for what's out of their control. Why not? It requires an extra bit of information like "People aren't responsible for what's out of their control" to make the contrary inference. New information is a fatal problem for a Must Be True question.

Stick to the stimulus!

Robert Carroll

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.