#8 - George: Some scientists say that global warming will

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Evaluate the Argument . The correct answer choice is (E)

In this stimulus, George asserts that global warming is already occurring, and bases this conclusion on two isolated instances of unusually mild temperatures. This conclusion is somewhat questionable, given that it is based on such limited information. Since the stimulus is followed by an Evaluate question, the correct answer choice might provide some less anecdotal means for assessing whether or not global warming is indeed already occurring.

Correct answer choice (E) provides the broader assessment. If unusually warm temperatures are occurring elsewhere more frequently as well, this would strengthen George’s argument. If there have not been such strange temperatures elsewhere, then George’s two pieces of evidences start to look more like coincidence or statistical aberration.

[voodoochild]

I chose A. HEre's my reasoning:

Scientists - say that the global warming will occur because of Carbon dioxide (Future tense)
George - No, the global warming is occuring already. (Main conclusion/point) because of PREMISE1

PREMISE1 - weather in George's area is weird.

My inference -there is something else that's causing the global warming.

A) matches my "evaluation"

Can you please help me to explain why A) is incorrect?

Thanks
Voodoo

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your question. In that one, as you point out, George thinks that global warming is happening already because of the recent strange local weather.

The question asks for the inquiry that would be most helpful in assessing George's argument.

The correct answer choice is E: is the weather strange in other places as well?

Answer choice A wouldn't help us assess George's conclusion: what if Carbon Dioxide is the only cause of global warming? what if it isn't? Either way, that question does not address or assess George's argument that the strange local weather provides proof of current global warming.

Let me know whether that clears this one up--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Thanks Steve. I have another question. If we compare this example with another one:

December 2003 LR1 Section II: "Physics professor: Some scientists claim that superheated ...." (lsat/viewtopic.php?t=4563)

In the above example : the physics professor concludes that "superheated plasma with failed electrical resistance is never a factor in causing ball lightning."

Why? Because (premise: the instances of ball lightning that i observed were of low intensity and floated horizontally before vanishing.)

However, the answer choice B) is irrelevant because we are saying we need to trust the professor. The fact that other researchers are able to verify what he say has no bearing on the cause-effect relationship.

However, in "global warming" example. Why aren't we trusting George? Essentially, what he observed could be true i.e. it could represent the global warming. Correct? Why is it relevant here? Any thoughts?

Thanks
Voodoo

[Steve Stein]

On that one, answer choice B is wrong, but its not because we have to trust the professor.

That question asks for the answer choice that justifies the professors conclusion--the one that proves it to be a logical conclusion.

Answer choice B provides that the observed phenomena were observed by at least one other person--this would not justify the professor's conclusion, so it should be ruled out.

Let me know whether that clears that question up--thanks!

~Steve

[yrivers]

Could you please explain why B is incorrect?

B states, "when leaves on the trees in the town usually change color." I chose this after using the Variance Test: If the leaves change color way earlier or way later, we could prove that the leaves having changed color 3 weeks late might be inaccurate.

Reading the last sentence of the stimulus, it's hard for me to gage if I should focus on the "mild temperatures" piece or the "changing of the leaves colors" as the main evidence to analyze.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Y,

Thanks for the questions! I've answered in response to you below:

Could you please explain why B is incorrect?

B states, "when leaves on the trees in the town usually change color." I chose this after using the Variance Test: If the leaves change color way earlier or way later, we could prove that the leaves having changed color 3 weeks late might be inaccurate.

The question of when the leaves usually change color is actually a specific one and relates to when the leaves in town normally change. The answer would be something like "September" or "mid-October" or "early November." When you posit each of those answers, it doesn't affect the argument all because George just tells us the leaves were late in turning; exactly when that was is not relevant.

You seem to be looking at this as if "when the leaves usually change" moves around significantly, but George said "usually," which means "most of the time" so there isn't an open issue here. We know that whenever it is that they change, in the example George cites about this fall it was three weeks later than that. It would be tremendously hard to challenge that claim in a way other than flatly stating he somehow has inaccurate data.

Reading the last sentence of the stimulus, it's hard for me to gage if I should focus on the "mild temperatures" piece or the "changing of the leaves colors" as the main evidence to analyze.

You should actually focus on neither of them (or both, depending on how you look at it), but that's confusing in the abstract so let me take a moment to explain. In this case, you should focus on what underlies both: that there is warm weather occurring at times it shouldn't be. The "springlike weather" and "late leaves" references are just examples that George cites to help prove his point that unusually warm weather is already occurring. In argumentation, you first want to look underneath examples to see what the broader point is that is being made. Often, strengthening or weakening an example is a weaker approach than directly addressing the main contention being made. Note: this is a really broad statement, and there are exceptions to any statement this broad; my point here is that examples usually aren't the main point, they just highlight the main point being made, and so if you can, always begin by making sure you grasp the broad point and if possible, address that point first.

Please let me know if the above helps. Thanks!

[yrivers]

Dave,

This explanation is perfect. I now understand.

Thank you!

Yaesul

[PositiveThinker]

I see why E is right. I just need some help as to why D is wrong..

My guess is because answer choice D talks about air pollution and the stimulus talks about the release of carbon dioxide burning trees and fossil fuels.

Is it wrong to assume that the releasing of carbon dioxide by burning trees and fossil fuels IS indeed "air pollution?" If you assume that carbon dioxide being released is air pollution, then D would be an important factor to evaluate the argument. Right?

I think its asking a lot to not assume that those 2 things are not the same. If i can get some help on how i should think about these types of situations it would be very helpful .

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Positive Thinker,

From responding to a couple of your posts I wanted to share a quick observation: it appears as though you may be spending insufficient time on the "prephrase" step of the process on LR questions; that is, the most effective way to choose the right answer is to spend a moment analyzing the stimulus and question stem in order to anticipate what the credited response should say or do. Thus, before we consider whether answer choice (D) has any merit, it would be worthwhile to spend a moment engaging with the argument to anticipate and determine what we wish to accomplish to answer this question quickly and accurately.

In general, I encourage you to begin your review of any questions, whether you ended up getting them right or wrong, with a diagnosis of the work you did before you looked at any answer choice. With this understanding of your work in mind, you can then determine how closely your predictions are matching the correct answers and how you can avoid falling into traps.

This argument is structured as follows:

• Statement: Some people claim global warming will occur because of human carbon emissions.
  
  Conclusion: Global warming is already occurring.
  
  Premise: Our area has had warmer-than-usual weather lately.

The question is to determine what information would be relevant to evaluate the strength/likelihood of the conclusion. Based on the evidence, we know that one area has experienced warmer than usual weather lately, but the question is: what would help us to determine whether global warming is actually already widespread.

Now it's important to prephrase. Come up with an idea of what kind of information might help you know whether or not global warming is occurring.

• We might want to know whether this area has experienced previous fluctuations in weather that averaged out over the years.
  
  We might want to know whether there has been a trend in temperatures in this area.
  
  We might want to know whether similar weather phenomena are occurring elsewhere.

It is not necessary to come up with an exhaustive list of every possibility. However, it is necessary to engage with the information so that you do not fall into traps.

For instance, does answer choice (D) actually help us know whether or not global warming is occurring sooner than expected? Whether or not air pollution is leading to leaves falling from trees has little effect either way with respect to the bigger question of global warming.

With respect to your question--human carbon emissions air pollution?--this was actually a central point of debate in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, but is not really an issue for this problem. Would it be valid to infer that human carbon emissions constitute air pollution? I suppose I have to give you the unsatisfactory answer that it depends on the context of and the other information in the stimulus.