#13 - Commentator: The worldwide oil crisis of 1973 was not

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning, CE. The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[cargostud]

This was my first real LSAT test. Lets just say I didn't get all the questions correct. I am reviewing all the questions I got wrong and posting my comments about them in the forum. I think this helps reinforce my learning.

In general a "Find the Flaw" question tells you that the argument or conclusion in the stimulus is incorrect. Immediately after reading the stimulus and the question, but before you read the answer choices, ask yourself, "Why is this argument or conclusion wrong?"

In this case the wrong conclusion centers around the argument that there was collusion among parties that profited from the oil crisis. What answer best supports the idea that there was no collusion?

Answer Choice (A)

[James Finch]

Hi Cargo Stud,

Flaw questions always contain at least one logical fallacy that makes the conclusion suspect, as the premises do not support it fully. In many cases, such as this one, the flaw isn't one of the many clearly identifiable ones, but rather a fallacious assumption, another commonly tested idea. The problem with this stimulus is that it makes the assumption that just because two things are correlated means they are causally related, and specifically in the way that the argument assumes. It could just be a happy coincidence for OPEC countries that the oil shortage led to greatly increased profits. So our Prephrase should reflect this assumption.

(A)--A verbose version of our Prephrase; describes a causal assumption just like what is happening in the stimulus. Correct.

(B)--This describes a conditional assumption, but the stimulus is based around causal, not conditional, logic. Thus this is not actually necessary to the stimulus. Incorrect.

(C)--Incorrect, there is no ambiguity.

(D)--Incorrect, totally irrelevant; we only care about what happened to cause the oil shortage, not whether there was a surplus beforehand or not.

(E)--Incorrect, the opposite of what is going on the stimulus. The problem is that the stimulus is trying to force a causal connection where there might be none, not that it's ignoring the possibility of one.

Hope this helps!

[manishatr]

Would answer choice E be right if the answer choice started with "The argument assumes, without providing justification"?

[Dana D]

Hey manishatr,

That wording would make answer choice (E) a better choice, yes, although at that point it is basically saying the same thing as answer choice (A), which is citing the fact that the argument equates correlation and causation.

[ashutosh_73]

Hi, I know (B) is a very common sense answer, but i am not sure how to eliminate this option.
Here is what i think about (B):

So, the correct answer to a flaw question will act like a necessary assumption, right?

Okay, argument says: YOU PROFITED --> HENCE YOU WERE BEHIND THE ACT.

Now, if i say: Hey, i was not the only one who profited. There are 10 more guys who profited.

Won't the above boldfaced statement severely weaken the logic of the argument?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi ashutosh,

First, I would not say that the correct answer to a flaw will always act like a necessary assumption.

The correct answer to a flaw question describes a flaw that is already inherent within the argument.

Sometimes, the flaw of the argument is a bad (or "unwarranted") assumption being made in the argument, but not always.

Here the argument does not assume (and does not need to assume) that no other parties benefited from the 1973 oil crisis. It's completely possible for other parties to have benefited without being involved in the collusion. For example, companies that sell alternative sources of energy, such as electricity or coal, may have indirectly benefited from the oil crisis as some consumers switch to cheaper alternatives to oil.

In this argument, it's not simply that these international oil companies and oil-producing countries benefited from the oil crisis, it's also important that they would be the parties with the power/ability to collude to restrict the supply of oil.