LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

User avatar
 Beth Hayden
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: Sep 04, 2021
|
#90385
Hi BMM,

It's not really a logical assumption, more of an inference. If there are large and medium sized tornados, there also have to be smaller ones. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to describe the smallest sized tornados as "medium," because medium means it's in the middle of a range of possible sizes. Small/Medium/Large are words of degree that only make sense in context with one another. Of course it's possible that there are more than three classifications, but if you are going to say "large," there has to be something smaller, and if you want to say "medium," there have to be sizes both bigger and smaller. So there could be any number of size classifications, but there at least has to be three.

Remember, this is a strengthen question, so we don't need an answer that proves the conclusion and rules out all possibilities! It seems like you might be approaching this more like an assumption question. We are just looking for an answer that, if true, could lend support to the conclusion. If L/M tornados are not being reported more often, it's entirely plausible that small tornados are making up the difference. And since we have now gotten better at finding tornados, it makes sense that the ones we are finding now that we didn't find in the 1950s are smaller and thus harder to see with the naked eye.

Sure, there might also be "extremely large" tornados, but why is that a problem? The stimulus doesn't say exactly how the technology works, just that we are now finding more tornados than we used to. That probably means we are finding small ones, but who knows, maybe these super-tornados are also hard to detect without technology because they are so big? But you don't have to worry about that, because you've already found a plausible explanation for why (C), if true, could strengthen the argument--and that's all you need.

Hope that's helpful!
 BMM2021
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: Jun 30, 2021
|
#90545
Very helpful, thanks! Seeing the small/medium/large inference pop up more often in studying now too, of course.
Beth Hayden wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:27 pm Hi BMM,

It's not really a logical assumption, more of an inference. If there are large and medium sized tornados, there also have to be smaller ones. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to describe the smallest sized tornados as "medium," because medium means it's in the middle of a range of possible sizes. Small/Medium/Large are words of degree that only make sense in context with one another. Of course it's possible that there are more than three classifications, but if you are going to say "large," there has to be something smaller, and if you want to say "medium," there have to be sizes both bigger and smaller. So there could be any number of size classifications, but there at least has to be three.

Remember, this is a strengthen question, so we don't need an answer that proves the conclusion and rules out all possibilities! It seems like you might be approaching this more like an assumption question. We are just looking for an answer that, if true, could lend support to the conclusion. If L/M tornados are not being reported more often, it's entirely plausible that small tornados are making up the difference. And since we have now gotten better at finding tornados, it makes sense that the ones we are finding now that we didn't find in the 1950s are smaller and thus harder to see with the naked eye.

Sure, there might also be "extremely large" tornados, but why is that a problem? The stimulus doesn't say exactly how the technology works, just that we are now finding more tornados than we used to. That probably means we are finding small ones, but who knows, maybe these super-tornados are also hard to detect without technology because they are so big? But you don't have to worry about that, because you've already found a plausible explanation for why (C), if true, could strengthen the argument--and that's all you need.

Hope that's helpful!
User avatar
 jdleggett
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: Jun 28, 2023
|
#102352
So, this question requires two inferences:

1) Based on the answer choice (if true), the number of small tornadoes reported must have significantly increased.

2) Our improved ability to find tornados means finding small tornados we previously didn't report.
User avatar
 Jeff Wren
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 947
  • Joined: Oct 19, 2022
|
#102361
Hi jdleggett,

Just to be clear, the argument itself doesn't require the two inferences that you listed, but Answer C (if true) would suggest those two inferences and therefore strengthen the argument.

In other words, there wouldn't necessarily be any reason to pre-phrase an answer regarding the size of the tornadoes. There could be many ways to strengthen this argument.

However, given the information in Answer C that the large and medium sized tornadoes reported have remained the same, it is reasonable to infer that the number of small tornadoes being reported has significantly increased and that this increase is likely due to our improved ability to detect them (as smaller tornadoes would presumably be harder to detect with the naked eye.)

As mentioned in earlier posts, the answer doesn't have to 100% prove the conclusion, just add more information that makes it more likely to be the case.
User avatar
 cd1010
  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: Jul 12, 2022
|
#106113
Hello -- Can you clarify how to be able to spot implicit causal statements? I see it now that I'm re-reading the stimulus, but this was not immediately where my mind went to. I was thinking that the conclusion was: # of tornadoes has probably not increased. This seems to me to be what the stimulus was trying to convince me of.

I picked B because I thought this supported the idea that we're finding a higher percentage of them than we used to. In some ways, I interpreted B the way that I processed some "new info"-type answer choices in supporting questions. If more tornadoes are hitting major population centers, then that increases the chance of finding them.

The official explanation uses the language of "technology", but I tried to keep as close to the language of the stimulus as possible, so in my mind, the stimulus was open about "finding tornadoes". So I thought, sure, if it's hitting larger cities, then people are finding them more. But, I realize that this is not exactly the same as ability to find them.

Basically, I didn't process this stimulus' reasoning as a causal explanation for a paradox, so I think my mind was focused on something else. And I'm not sure how to not make this error in the future?

Thanks!
User avatar
 Chandler H
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: Feb 09, 2024
|
#106151
cd1010 wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2024 7:44 am Hello -- Can you clarify how to be able to spot implicit causal statements? I see it now that I'm re-reading the stimulus, but this was not immediately where my mind went to. I was thinking that the conclusion was: # of tornadoes has probably not increased. This seems to me to be what the stimulus was trying to convince me of.

I picked B because I thought this supported the idea that we're finding a higher percentage of them than we used to. In some ways, I interpreted B the way that I processed some "new info"-type answer choices in supporting questions. If more tornadoes are hitting major population centers, then that increases the chance of finding them.

The official explanation uses the language of "technology", but I tried to keep as close to the language of the stimulus as possible, so in my mind, the stimulus was open about "finding tornadoes". So I thought, sure, if it's hitting larger cities, then people are finding them more. But, I realize that this is not exactly the same as ability to find them.

Basically, I didn't process this stimulus' reasoning as a causal explanation for a paradox, so I think my mind was focused on something else. And I'm not sure how to not make this error in the future?

Thanks!
Hi cd1010,

As others have said in this thread, it's more useful to think of this stimulus as a resolve the paradox question, in which the meteorologist actually DOES resolve the paradox. How do we identify that when we read the stimulus? A good indicator of a paradox is the presentation of two facts which seem to contradict each other—like they can't both be true at the same time. This is where we intervene to look for the cause.

In the first two sentences, we learn a fact (# of reported tornadoes has more than doubled since 1950s), and then we hear an assertion that seems to contradict that fact (BUT, the actual # of tornadoes has probably not increased). This is our paradox. Then, the meteorologist provides a cause that resolves that paradox—i.e., we have an easier time finding tornadoes now than we did then.

Ideally, the correct answer choice will show that we may have found more tornadoes, but ALSO that there are not simply more tornadoes. That's the issue with answer choice (B)—there's not really a good explanation for 2x as many tornadoes hitting major population centers, EXCEPT that the number of tornadoes overall has increased. Which is the opposite of what we're trying to prove!

On the other hand, answer choice (C) tells us that we've reported about as many large and medium sized tornadoes every year since the '50s. That means the increased # of tornadoes we report are mostly small tornadoes, which are the ones we'd need help finding, right? Therefore, it fulfills that "finding tornadoes" part of the stimulus that you mentioned.

Does this clarify things?
User avatar
 DaveFromSpace
  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: Nov 10, 2024
|
#110928
I appreciate all the discussion here and I narrowed down the answers to C and E while taking the test, but I couldn't pull the trigger on selecting C.

I know this isn't a necessary assumption question but let's try negating the answers to see how much they weaken the meteorologist's argument:

C (negated): The number of large and medium sized tornadoes reported annually has increased since the 1950s.

E (negated): The geographic range in which tornadoes are most prevalent has expanded since the 1950s.

If we negate C, it really doesn't weaken the argument much. We're already told that reported tornadoes increased. We all would have assumed reported tornadoes of all sizes probably increased if this answer choice didn't tell us otherwise. So this negation doesn't weaken the original argument much.

Negating E does weaken the argument. Because if the area where tornadoes appear the most often has increased, then it seriously undermines the conclusion that we are probably just detecting more of them.

For example, most alligator attacks occur in the South. If we have more reported attacks now vs the 1950's, we may not have more actual attacks. People have cellphones now, so maybe the same # of attacks are just getting reported more. But if we suddenly start getting reported alligator attacks in Alaska and New Hampshire as frequently as in the South, then it's much harder to argue that the actual number of attacks didn't increase.

Note that E states that the actual geographic range has expanded. Not just our estimation of the range (which can improve with time and technological progress). So there is a material difference in how tornadoes appear now vs the 1950's. And this difference cannot be explained simply with our increased ability to detect them.

Using the alligator attack example, this means alligators really are attacking people as frequently in Alaska and New Hampshire as they are in the South. Imagine knowing this fact and still trying to argue that there isn't an increase in alligator attacks!

Of course, we can say that maybe the range expanded, but the density of tornadoes has decreased, so it's still possible the overall number of tornadoes can remain the same. But unless this is explicitly stated, I think we'd be making too many assumptions. We can just as easily make equally unsupported assumptions in the opposite direction.

The issue with C is that it feels like it requires too many implicit assumptions and/or outside knowledge.

What are the criteria used to categorize the size of tornadoes? What is the distribution of tornadoes among these different sizes? What is the geographic range in which these tornadoes appear in?

Assume I'm someone from Alaska and have hardly ever heard of tornadoes, or even know what they are. How can I choose answer C? What if tornadoes are meteorological manifestations that almost always results in them being "large or medium" in size? And it's extremely rare to have small ones? What if tornadoes occur in a very small geographical area in which tornadoes of all sizes will be noticed and reported even back in the 1950's? What if the categories of tornado changed, and separating them into large, medium, and small, isn't meaningful unless you adjust them based on the changes?

We used to categorize Pluto as a planet, so we've actually lost a whole planet since the 1950's! What could possibly explain this decline in the number of planets in our solar system!?

The best way to support an argument isn't necessarily to support a premise or a gap in logic between the premise and conclusion. The best way to support an argument can be to eliminate strong objections to the argument.

For example, let's say a politician is arguing we should increase NASA funding so that we can reach the moon before the Soviets. We can strengthen his argument by showing how increased funding would increase our chances of beating the Soviets. But we can also strengthen it by addressing the biggest objections. For example, let's say another politician objects to increasing NASA's funding because he thinks the money can be more productively invested elsewhere such as education. In this case, the original politician can rule out this objection by demonstrating that the return on investment for NASA's funding and its derivative scientific breakthroughs would far surpass the return on investment on more general education funding.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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