#12 - Climatologist: Over the coming century, winter

[lsatstudying11]

Hello!

I got this question incorrect, so I’d like to run through my thought process to see if I have now understood it well.

From the get to, this is clearly a causal argument that links up (sorta):

Increased temperature —> greater proportion of rain

Therefore, snowpack will melt more rapidly and earlier —> more flooding and less storable water

I think that I initially made the mistake of leaping from ‘greater proportion of rain’ to the idea about the snowpack because it logically makes sense. However, in actuality, we cannot assume the causal connectivity here because we must be careful about making such assumptions on the LSAT. So, since the idea of snowpack sort of comes out of nowhere, we’d like an answer that brings up the idea of snowpack.

B is nice because it links up increased temperature, snowpacks, and more flooding/less storable water.

C and D are tricky. C is wrong for a few reasons, including the fact that it compares across regions of the Rockies, which is somewhat different from what the climatologist tells us. Also, here, we are missing the idea of flooding and, more importantly, snowpacks—snowpacks is still unaccounted for. Same with D, snowpacks is unaccounted for, and we need something to nail down and connect the idea of snowpacks to something else in this causal link because it actually comes out of nowhere in the conclusion.

The lesson I learned from this is to be VERY careful about glossing over causal links, and be skeptical of any leaps that are made. Just as ‘snowpacks melting earlier and quicker’ cannot be assumed to actually follow from ‘great proportion of rain,’ it is also the case that, no matter what our real world experience tells us, we cannot make such leaps.

Is this a good way of thinking about this tricky question? Thank you in advance

[Robert Carroll]

lsat,

That analysis looks good to me. Keep up the good work!

Robert Carroll

[ashpine17]

Ok so A is a premise booster? I thought the whole spheal about strengthening and weakening arguments was either to strengthen or weaken the connection between the premise and the conclusion and not the conclusion directly which is why I was confused about B. I picked C. Is taht incorrect because we don't know if that discrepancy in the amt of stored water between the mild and colder regions of the Rocky Mountains was due to the entire causal chain presented in the stimulus?

[Adam Tyson]

Answer B strengthens the entire argument by showing cases where when the cause is present, the effect is also present. It's not just strengthening a premise or a conclusion, but the whole thing by saying "see, what we said would happen DID happen in some other cases."

Answer C is very attractive, but it tells us about differences between two areas (colder location vs milder location) instead of telling us about differences in a single area as the weather changes (when it is colder in this location vs when it is warmer in this location). The argument is about the effect of a change in temperature in one place, not about a difference in temperature between two places. Subtle, but important!

[ashpine17]

Someone stated D was incorrect because it compared regions of the world instead of talking about mountain ranges...is that really a legitimate reason for taking this out? I personally didn't like the answer because it was talking about mildest winters versus "much colder" weather while the stimulus was comparing an area of the rocky mountains during MILD versus COLDER seasons.

[Adam Tyson]

I'm not seeing that comment in this thread, ashpine, so perhaps that's coming from someone outside the Powerscore family? I think the biggest problem with D is that it doesn't address changes within one area, but instead only deals with comparisons between different areas. I'm not so sure it matters that those regions are not limited to mountain ranges.

[nicolesav]

is my reasoning here correct:
B reinforces the relationship of causation in a different mountain region, so since these are somewhat analogous it strengthens the cause and effect relationship.

C is simply stating a correlation, and it is irrational to assume that a correlation like this would imply causation

[Jeff Wren]

Hi nicolesav,

Your reasoning looks solid.

In addition, the fact that Answer C is comparing two entirely different areas of the Rocky Mountains, which may have many differences besides the temperatures in winter, leaves open the possibility of alternate causes wide open. For example, perhaps the areas of the Rocky Mountains with milder winters have less storable water for some other reason that has nothing to do with the melting snowpack, such as simply having less precipitation entirely.

By focusing on mild versus colder winters in the same area, Answer B strengthens the causal relationship between warmer winter temperatures, melting snowpack, spring flooding, and less storable water.