- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:00 am
#32465
Complete Question Explanation
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (B)
Here, the author disputes the accuracy of certain statements made by several nations in 1997 concerning their oil reserves. Those nations asserted that their oil reserves had not changed in the past year, since the end of 1996. The author, however, concludes that most of the nations were probably mistaken in these assertions.
In reaching this conclusion, the author relies on causal reasoning and probabilistic evidence. We are told that “oil reserves are unlikely to remain unchanged from one year to the next,” because oil is extracted from existing oil fields, reducing reserves, while new oil fields are discovered, increasing oil reserves. Essentially, draining oil and finding new oil fields are both causes of changing oil reserves. These causes are distinct, though they are not mutually exclusive, and could occur at the same time.
Essentially, the author argues that since it is unlikely that oil reserves remain unchanged from one year to the next, then for most of these countries, the reserves probably changed in some way. And, although the author does not explicitly say so, since a change in oil reserves is caused by either draining an existing oil field or discovering a new one, the author must believe that one or both of these causes occurred.
The question stem identifies this as an Assumption question. Our prephrase is that the author assumes that, in most of the nations at issue in 1997, either existing oil fields were drained, new oil fields were discovered, or both causes occurred. If neither of these causes occurred, there would be no basis for the author’s conclusion that these nations are probably incorrect.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice is too expansive, because it refers to any nation. The stimulus dealt only with most of the several nations that stated their oil reserves remain unchanged.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, for the reasons described above. If no existing oil fields were drained and no new fields were discovered, the conclusion would be entirely without support.
Answer choice (C): The conclusion does not require that any one nation experience both causes. Instead, it requires that most of the nations experienced as least one of the changes.
Answer choice (D): A counterpart to answer choice (C), this choice is incorrect, because it is not required that both causes occur for a nation’s reserves to change.
Answer choice (E): Refreshingly, this answer choice appears to be an attempt at LSAT humor. The argument has nothing to do with a nation’s duty to accurately report changes in its reserves.
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (B)
Here, the author disputes the accuracy of certain statements made by several nations in 1997 concerning their oil reserves. Those nations asserted that their oil reserves had not changed in the past year, since the end of 1996. The author, however, concludes that most of the nations were probably mistaken in these assertions.
In reaching this conclusion, the author relies on causal reasoning and probabilistic evidence. We are told that “oil reserves are unlikely to remain unchanged from one year to the next,” because oil is extracted from existing oil fields, reducing reserves, while new oil fields are discovered, increasing oil reserves. Essentially, draining oil and finding new oil fields are both causes of changing oil reserves. These causes are distinct, though they are not mutually exclusive, and could occur at the same time.
Essentially, the author argues that since it is unlikely that oil reserves remain unchanged from one year to the next, then for most of these countries, the reserves probably changed in some way. And, although the author does not explicitly say so, since a change in oil reserves is caused by either draining an existing oil field or discovering a new one, the author must believe that one or both of these causes occurred.
The question stem identifies this as an Assumption question. Our prephrase is that the author assumes that, in most of the nations at issue in 1997, either existing oil fields were drained, new oil fields were discovered, or both causes occurred. If neither of these causes occurred, there would be no basis for the author’s conclusion that these nations are probably incorrect.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice is too expansive, because it refers to any nation. The stimulus dealt only with most of the several nations that stated their oil reserves remain unchanged.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, for the reasons described above. If no existing oil fields were drained and no new fields were discovered, the conclusion would be entirely without support.
Answer choice (C): The conclusion does not require that any one nation experience both causes. Instead, it requires that most of the nations experienced as least one of the changes.
Answer choice (D): A counterpart to answer choice (C), this choice is incorrect, because it is not required that both causes occur for a nation’s reserves to change.
Answer choice (E): Refreshingly, this answer choice appears to be an attempt at LSAT humor. The argument has nothing to do with a nation’s duty to accurately report changes in its reserves.
Pets)
Lovely)