- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:38 am
#72682
Complete Question Explanation
Weaken, CE. The correct answer choice is (C).
This is a Weaken question. Like with all Weaken questions, we want to identify the premises and conclusion, identify the gap, Pre-Phrase an answer that will exacerbate the gap, and then find the answer choice that best matches our Pre-Phrase.
Here, our conclusion and premise are as follows:
Premise: Soon after WW2, air-conditioned houses with low ceilings and thin walls sold well.
Conclusion: Therefore increased availability of air-conditioning was the cause of residential architectural changes after WW2.
One of the most common types of "gaps" in Logical Reasoning arguments is a reliance upon Cause and Effect reasoning. Cause and Effect reasoning is inherently suspect, because to say that one event is the end-all-be-all cause of a second event is always an oversimplification. The conclusion of our argument here uses Cause and Effect reasoning to say that air conditioning caused the architectural changes.
As the LSAT Course Books / PowerScore Bibles go over, the 5 ways to weaken Cause and Effect reasoning are: show an alternate cause (e.g. the state of the economy was responsible for the architectural changes), show that the cause occurred but the effect did not (e.g. air conditioned houses with pre-war architecture of tall ceilings and thick walls also sold well), show that the effect still occurred without the cause (e..g low ceilings and thin walled homes sold well even without air conditioning), show that the cause and effect are reversed (e.g. the architectural changes of lower ceilings and thin walled homes forced more Americans to seek out and demand air conditioning), or attack the data. Our Pre-Phrase is to look for any answer choice that employs one of those methods.
Answer Choice (A): If anything, this strengthens the argument. High ceilings and thick walls protect against the weather, and it was only the ability to somewhat control the weather via air conditioning that brought a movement away from them.
Answer Choice (B): Out of scope, the costliness of heating lower ceiling, thinner walled homes has nothing to do with whether air conditioning caused those changes.
Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer. It weakens the Cause and Effect reasoning by showing that the cause did not occur but the effect still did. Despite no air conditioning, people still loved their low ceilings and thin walls.
Answer Choice (D): This might be a tempting answer for some because it seems to attack the connection between thin walls and air-conditioning. However, the conclusion of the stimulus isn't that thin walls are great for air-conditioned homes; the conclusion is that air-conditioning allowed for a shift towards thinner walls and lower ceilings. Just because thinner walls are worse than thick walls at holding in cool air, that still doesn't weaken the cause and effect relationship between air conditioning being the historical impetus for that shift. So this is incorrect.
Answer Choice (E): Out of scope, the existence of new technology doesn't on its face account for any architectural changes and so doesn't present a valid alternate cause.
Weaken, CE. The correct answer choice is (C).
This is a Weaken question. Like with all Weaken questions, we want to identify the premises and conclusion, identify the gap, Pre-Phrase an answer that will exacerbate the gap, and then find the answer choice that best matches our Pre-Phrase.
Here, our conclusion and premise are as follows:
Premise: Soon after WW2, air-conditioned houses with low ceilings and thin walls sold well.
Conclusion: Therefore increased availability of air-conditioning was the cause of residential architectural changes after WW2.
One of the most common types of "gaps" in Logical Reasoning arguments is a reliance upon Cause and Effect reasoning. Cause and Effect reasoning is inherently suspect, because to say that one event is the end-all-be-all cause of a second event is always an oversimplification. The conclusion of our argument here uses Cause and Effect reasoning to say that air conditioning caused the architectural changes.
As the LSAT Course Books / PowerScore Bibles go over, the 5 ways to weaken Cause and Effect reasoning are: show an alternate cause (e.g. the state of the economy was responsible for the architectural changes), show that the cause occurred but the effect did not (e.g. air conditioned houses with pre-war architecture of tall ceilings and thick walls also sold well), show that the effect still occurred without the cause (e..g low ceilings and thin walled homes sold well even without air conditioning), show that the cause and effect are reversed (e.g. the architectural changes of lower ceilings and thin walled homes forced more Americans to seek out and demand air conditioning), or attack the data. Our Pre-Phrase is to look for any answer choice that employs one of those methods.
Answer Choice (A): If anything, this strengthens the argument. High ceilings and thick walls protect against the weather, and it was only the ability to somewhat control the weather via air conditioning that brought a movement away from them.
Answer Choice (B): Out of scope, the costliness of heating lower ceiling, thinner walled homes has nothing to do with whether air conditioning caused those changes.
Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer. It weakens the Cause and Effect reasoning by showing that the cause did not occur but the effect still did. Despite no air conditioning, people still loved their low ceilings and thin walls.
Answer Choice (D): This might be a tempting answer for some because it seems to attack the connection between thin walls and air-conditioning. However, the conclusion of the stimulus isn't that thin walls are great for air-conditioned homes; the conclusion is that air-conditioning allowed for a shift towards thinner walls and lower ceilings. Just because thinner walls are worse than thick walls at holding in cool air, that still doesn't weaken the cause and effect relationship between air conditioning being the historical impetus for that shift. So this is incorrect.
Answer Choice (E): Out of scope, the existence of new technology doesn't on its face account for any architectural changes and so doesn't present a valid alternate cause.
