#24 - Meteorologist: The number of tornadoes reported annual

[Eva]

Oh! Yes, I see my error now. I need to make sure it strengthens the answer. So an answer choice that could go both ways isn't really strengthening (and not really weakening either) but is sort of like an assumption.

Thank you so much!

- Eva

[glasann]

I chose B because I had not assumed that it was necessarily technology that was allowing us to find more tornados. It seems like that's a 'could be true' explanation, but not an assumption in the stimulus. Couldn't be something else being making them easier to detect, like the fact that tornados are occurring in more obvious locations, as answer B offers?

thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with answer B, glasann, is that it could just as easily weaken the conclusion by suggesting that there are actually more tornadoes now than there used to be. We need to strengthen "it's not more tornadoes, it's that we are finding more of them." Without knowing more about why more of them are hitting those major population centers, we cannot be sure if this helps, hurts, or does nothing to the argument.

[garbicll]

Hi,

This question makes no sense to me. I chose A because I didn't like any of the other answers. C just seems so out there. I don't really understand how you're supposed to go through that entire thought process of the small tornadoes vs medium and large tornadoes and come out with that answer.

thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi garbicll,

It's a tough question, there's no doubt about it! In order to safely eliminate answers (like answer choice A), focus initially on the conclusion, that "we’re probably just finding a higher percentage of them [tornados] than we used to." That conclusion is arguing for a change from the 1950s: finding a higher percentage now, versus finding a lower percentage then. To support that, some fact indicating a change from the 1950s to now would be helpful. Answer choice A doesn't assert that anything has changed, rather it says that things have stayed the same when it comes to the physical damage from average tornados. Further, answer choice A doesn't speak to the issue of the number of tornados (physical damage telling me nothing about their number). So answer choice A must be eliminated.

Answer choice C is quite subtle for sure. At first glance it doesn't look like it's asserting a change. But, it's shedding light on one of the premise facts (which I'm allowed to assume are true) that does assert a change. The fact is that the "number of tornadoes reported annually has more than doubled since the 1950s." Now, if (as answer choice C says), the "number of large and medium sized tornadoes reported annually has remained roughly constant since the 1950," then it also must be the case that what is driving that doubling in the reported number is small tornados. There's nothing else that could be driving that doubling. So, in addition to what answer choice C says on the surface, there's a necessary inference that the number of small tornados reported annually has gone up significantly since the 1950s. We have to keep an eye out for an answer choice allowing for those kinds of inferences. Where an answer choice tells us more information about part of a category the stimulus referred to (the large/medium part of the "reported annually" category), we're able to make inferences about the remainder of that category (the small part of that category). Is that something LSAC asks you to do often? No. But on harder questions (like the questions at the end of a logical reasoning section), we've got to be on the lookout for those possibilities. So keep that principle in mind for the future, and you'll be better able to apply it in similarly-styled answer choices!

I hope this helps!

[sidneythomas1222@gmail.com]

Hi all. I chose A and now recognize why I was wrong. When I read it originally I didn't notice that it said the "average tornado." I get why we don't care about the average here. If the answer had said "The physical damage caused by TORNADOS has remained roughly constant since the 1950s."--> Would that have made a better answer choice? I read carelessly, but I want to check my logic regarding what I thought I read anyway.

[AK921]

Hi!

I still would think E is the better answer. With global warming more locations are experiencing tornados, meaning the geographic range is increasing, and we are therefore seeing more tornadoes in totality. This seems simple to say if the geographic range is staying the same, then there are not more opportunities for locations for tornadoes than previously, which helps the argument.

It seems C requires more outsider knowledge on understanding small tornadoes.

What makes the outsider knowledge known for C more acceptable than not considering E?

Thank you!!

[Beatrice Brown]

Hi Sidney! Thanks for your great question

Great job realizing why answer choice (A) is wrong. If the answer choice just said that the physical damage caused by tornadoes in general has remained roughly constant, this definitely would have made it a better answer choice, but there's still a bit of a flaw to it. It's possible that the damage remained roughly constant because there was a greater number of small tornadoes than in the past, meaning the total number of tornadoes still could have increased and the damage could have remained the same. For example, imagine there are roughly 100 medium-sized tornadoes in 1950, which cause the same amount of damage as 70 smaller tornadoes and 40 larger tornadoes in the current year. In this case, the damage may remain roughly constant, despite the number of tornadoes increasing.

It's possible that this modified answer choice could strengthen the argument, but note that its ability to strengthen the argument relies on the assumption that the size of the tornadoes and the damage that each individual tornado does remains constant as well.

That being said, the main issue with answer choice (A) is that it says that the damage done by the average tornado is the same, not the damage done by tornadoes on the whole. If the answer choice had instead said the physical damage done by tornadoes has been roughly constant, it would have certainly been a better answer choice, despite still being a bit flawed.

I hope this helps, and let me know if you have any other questions!

[Beatrice Brown]

Hi AK! Thanks for your great question

The issue with answer choice (E) is it would not support the idea that the number of tornados remained roughly constant and our ability to find them has improved. The answer choice only discusses the geographic range where tornadoes are most prevalent. But even if this geographic range of greatest prevalence remained the same, it's possible that there are now other areas where tornadoes are becoming prevalent, which explains the greater number of tornadoes reported annually rather than an improved ability to find tornadoes. Just because the geographic range where these tornadoes are most prevalent has remained roughly constant does not mean that the number of tornadoes has remained the same and they're just being found more often in that area. The explanation you offered hinges on answer choice (E) not being qualified by the phrase "most prevalent."

In this way, the difference between answer choices (C) and (E) isn't that one introduces a more acceptable type of outside information than the other. On Strengthen questions, it's okay for the answer choice to introduce a new piece of information that would strengthen the argument in the stimulus. This is what answer choice (C) does, as it provides us with another reason to think that we're just finding more of these tornadoes than we did in the past: if the number of large and medium sized tornadoes has remained roughly constant, then the additional tornadoes that are being reported are small tornadoes that have always happened but may not have been detected.

To sum up, the difference between answer choices (C) and (E) isn't the amount of additional information that is introduced, as additional information is acceptable in the correct answer choice on Strengthen questions. Instead, the issue with answer choice (E) is that it does not actually give us a reason to think that we're just finding more tornadoes rather than the number of tornadoes actually increasing over the years because its scope is limited to the geographic range where tornadoes are "most prevalent."

I hope this helps, and let me know if you have any further questions!

[BMM2021]

Hi,

Reading through this question's forum, I understand the reasoning behind answer C. However, in trying to extrapolate this situation to other questions, I'm running into the problem of the "logical" assumption we're supposed to make here - that small tornados must constitute the doubling that has occurred, if the answer is assumed correct.

Since the stimulus doesn't refer to tornado size as a factor in reporting frequency, what's to limit our assumption to the smaller tornados? Why couldn't "extremely large" tornados instead be the subgroup of tornados that are now being reported with higher frequency? If that's the case, it seems illogical to argue that some technology or greater knowledge has allowed us to better perceive the most obvious of all tornados. Or perhaps more importantly, what if there are no other classifications of tornados besides large and medium? That would obviously weaken the argument and imply that the frequency of tornados has increased. I guess I'm wondering why the "small tornados" assumption is expected to be made?

Ultimately, I'm just trying to better understand how minor assumptions like those required for C can be justified as we examine answers.

Thanks!

Hi Young Cord,

In order to answer your question, let's break down the argument being made in the stimulus. We are presented with a paradox that the meteorologist attempts to resolve by using causal reasoning, in order to prove an effect.

Paradox: Twice the number tornadoes are being reported today than in the 50's, but same number of tornadoes are actually occurring.

Cause: Better technology.

Effect/Resolution to Paradox: Greater % of tornadoes being reported.

And we are asked to strengthen that causal link. Answer choice (C) does this by stating that the same number of medium and large tornadoes are being reported today as in the 50's, which leaves small tornadoes to make up the difference. Logically, the larger tornadoes would have been the ones most likely to have been reported in the 50's, and the smaller tornadoes would be the ones that only modern technology would notice. Now this doesn't 100% prove the conclusion (it could simply be that there are more small tornadoes and the same number of larger ones today) but it does help make it more likely to be true, which is all that is required of a correct Strengthen question answer choice.

Hope this clears things up!