- Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:48 pm
#66132
lsatfighter,
When you see a standard flaw on the LSAT and are asked to identify the flaw, you should select the choice that responds directly to the standard flaw.
In this case, there is a formal logic flaw because you cannot chain two "some" statements together. You should be familiar with that prohibition and the reason for it, but in review:
Some houses are white.
Some houses are brick.
Therefore there are some white brick houses.
The problem is made simple by assigning numbers, remembering that "some" means "at least one":
1 of 10 total houses is white.
1 of 10 total houses is brick.
Now it is easy to see that there is no reason why the white house should also be a brick house. There are plenty of houses to spread those characteristics around without any overlap. Note that these are not probability claims where, given enough houses, it might be unreasonable to think that a 1/10 probability of white and 1/10 probability of brick never result in a house with both characteristics. It's just 10 houses, 1 is white, and 1 is brick. It could be 1 white brick house and 9 other houses, or it could be 1 white, 1 brick, and 8 other houses. Concluding there is definitely overlap is flawed.
Looking at answer choice (B), that choice directly states the problem just illustrated. That is ample proof that (B) is the credited response.
The reason why (E) is wrong is that there is nothing in the stimulus that would indicate that the stimulus is making a causal argument or one based on statistical correlation. It simply made a formal logic error by chaining "some" statements together. The reason why (E) is attractive to you is that you probably assume that there could be some kind of causal connection or statistical correlation between hot days, smog, and wind. However, you have to be careful and confirm whether the stimulus uses causal words or correlation words to associate these things, and it doesn't. They are simply things that happen.
