#24 - Statistician: Changes in the Sun’s luminosity

[Brook Miscoski]

lsatfighter,

The question stem asks you to identify the meteorologist's method of reasoning. The meteorologist does not claim that any evidence has been neglected by other meteorologists. Additionally, the meteorologist does not identify any evidence that has been neglected by the statistician. Therefore (E) cannot be correct.

The meteorologist does not disagree based on any particular evidence; instead, the meteorologist simply believes that the relevant experts are probably right that there is more than one factor.

[Sunlightshan]

Hi ellen,

Both 24 and 25 work from the same stimulus: A statistician and a meteorologist. However, the statistician makes one of the most glaring mistakes a statistician can make: Using a correlation to prove causation.

However, the meteorologist makes an equally egregious mistake, by countering that with a fallacious appeal to popularity and an incorrect generalization.

It can be difficult to evaluate a stimulus where both speakers are committing fallacies. But the LSAT has done you one worse by effectively asking you a similar question twice. They effectively task you with finding both of the meteorologist's mistakes.

Question 24 is a method of reasoning question. The meteorologists makes the sweeping claim that any complicated enough system cannot be controlled by one variable, and then applies it to the specific case of climate. This is answer choice A.

Question 25 addresses the other fallacy, though in this case it at least identifies it as such. The meterologist simply relies on the opinion of "Any professional meteorologist" without actually addressing any of the statistician's evidence. Answer choice E reflects that.

Hi PowerScore Team, I see your point here, but I am still confused by the phrase that answer A "supporting a conclusion about a specific case" because the meteorologist does not support a conclusion about the luminosity/earth temperature case here, but rather rejecting a conclusion made by Statistician. Thus, I thought Answer A is wrong (in fact I deleted it upon seeing the term supporting a conclusion), and it should be presented as rejecting a conclusion about a specific case by invoking a relevant generation. so this seems a trap to me, and I wonder how can I avoid this trap again. Could someone please help clarify and offer some guidance here.

Thank you!
SS

[KelseyWoods]

Hi SS!

You are correct that the Meteorologist is not supporting the Statistician's conclusion that the Sun’s luminosity controls the temperature. But the Meteorologist has their own conclusion! The Meteorologist's conclusion is basically that the Statistician's conclusion is incorrect. So the Meteorologist is supporting their own conclusion, that the Sun's luminosity does not control the temperature.

Generally speaking, when you have 2 speakers like this, each speaker has their own conclusion. Oftentimes the conclusion of the second speaker is something along the lines of: "the conclusion of the first speaker is incorrect." And then they support that conclusion by explaining why the first speaker's conclusion is incorrect. So, in this case, the Meteorologist is supporting their conclusion that the Statistician's conclusion is incorrect about the specific case of the Sun's luminosity by invoking the generalization that no significant aspect of a system as complex as climate can be controlled by a single variable.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[tetsuya0129]

Hi Powerscore staff,

"Counterexample" on (E) seems to refer to the statistician's conclusion. But how could a viewpoint/ assertion be an example? I suppose an example shall be some facts or phenomenon or at least a result of a study.

If the quote-unquote refers to the first sentence, the sentence is only a high correlation, rather than a causation. How come a high correlation could be said to be a counterexample against the claim "no significant aspect can be controlled by a single variable"? The high correlation does not address whether an aspect being controlled or not.

Please kindly help.
Thank you.
Leon

[Adam Tyson]

I'm not sure I follow your question here, tetsuya0129, but I can tell you that answer B, which is the one that brings up a counterexample, is incorrect because the meteorologist did not use a counterexample. An example must be a specific instance of the thing that is being examined or discussed. If you make an argument that all dogs are friendly, and I point to a particular dog that is unfriendly, that dog is a counterexample because it is a specific case (one dog) that counters your position.

Are you perhaps referring to question 25, which is discussed in another thread, found here?:

viewtopic.php?f=644&t=26987

If so, check out that thread, but the short answer is that the case of the relationship between the sun's luminosity and the Earth's average land temperature is an example that could be used to weaken the meteorologist's argument. The meteorologist has made a general claim about complex systems, but the statistician provided a specific case of an element in that system that might counter the general claim.