LSAT Discussion Forum

Please post below with any questions!

Hi,
I chose B while the correct answer was D.

The stimulus states:
1. Unstable climate ~caused fall of Rome
2. Evidence: tree-rings
3. Variable climate hurt food production + made empire hard to defend

Task: strengthen

B seemed to rule out the option of "unrest," which I thought was like fighting in Game of Thrones so it seemed to support climate being responsible for bad food production.
Is B wrong because it does not directly address food production?

D seemed to weaken the argument. If Europe consistently experienced happy favorable weather for agriculture, then that rules out the option of a "variable climate."
Why is D correct?

Hey MB - thanks for the question!

I believe this mostly comes down to a misreading.

"Unrest" in (B) simply means discord in the region, something we would surely expect to find a fair amount of in an empire in decline. It's not a cause of the decline, but a symptom. A sign that things truly are beginning to fall apart.

So when (B) says that the areas of greatest climatic instability experienced no more unrest than other areas, it's actually weakening the argument that climatic fluctuations were the cause of problems: the places where the climate was least stable didn't see any greater problems than more climatically-serene regions.

Instead, we want to show a stronger connection between climate and Roman empire success/failure. That the ups and downs of the empire may indeed be tied to the weather.

(D) gives us that connection by saying when the climate was favorable for agriculture (unlike the time period in the stimulus), the Roman empire thrived! The idea of good climate/crops empire success makes the notion of
bad climate/crops empire collapse more likely.

Note: (D) is a long way from proving anything in the stimulus. It simply shows a tighter link between weather/crops and the success of the empire, which bolsters the claim that poor weather could hamper that success.

I chose B as well because I thought it to eliminate an alternative cause.



And D I didn't like, still don't like, because it seems like an answer choice that LSAT usually wants us to stay away from. I realize it may create a stronger link..but when we're talking about empire crumbling because of agriculture, how is it strengthen to say the complete opposite of that?


When is it ok to use the opposite sort of answers like for this question? For example: When this was bad, this happened.... a/c: so when this was good, this didn't happen...

Basically what D is saying and I always have a hard time picking these answers. Advice???

Khodi,

Answer choice (B) breaks the connection between climate instability and unrest, which makes it seem like climate instability does not lead to the kinds of things that could collapse the Roman Empire. It thus weakens the argument.

Answer choice (D) strengthens the connection between climate and food production. If the variable climate was, as the argument claims, responsible for poor food production, which in turn led to the fall of the empire, then you'd expect a good climate not to lead to such problems. This is a classic "Show that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur" method for strengthening cause and effect arguments. If the author is right about causation, then removing that cause should also remove the effect. If it doesn't, then the effect was going to happen anyway - the the author's cause isn't the real cause. Answer choice (D) basically says "if the cause isn't present, the effect won't be either, so the author is more likely to be right that this really was the cause."

Robert Carroll

Why is C not correct?
It is the only answer that addresses the fall of the entire Roman empire due to the poor quality of the land which is of course affected by poor climate. Doesn't that strengthen the conclusion?

Hi Coffee,

The problem with (C) is that it could just as easily be a weakener. The stimulus is a cause and effect argument - it suggests that the climate hurt food production. (C) suggests that there could be an alternate cause - poor farming practices. This is a pretty typical way of weakening cause and effect arguments. If we can suggest the possibility of an alternate cause, it makes the original argument less convincing, because now we have reason to doubt the original cause and effect relationship that is being suggested.

Hi
I am not sure I follow why B is not the correct answer.
The stimulus is saying that the unstable climate was a MAJOR cause of the downfall. So I took that to mean, nothing else was that impactful. B seems to indicate that all was well in the world, but the climate was not. So that is the reason for the downfall.

Answer choice D states that when they were thriving, there was good climate, unlike the the time in question. But that may not be why they were thriving. It could have been for a multitude of other reasons like they were economically prosperous from their conquests and could withstand some bad storms.

Would you please help with this one?
Thanks

queenbee,

Answer choice (B) is saying that where the climate was most unstable (the cause was most present), the levels of unrest were not unusual (the effect was least present). This answer choice weakens the argument by showing that where the cause happened, the effect did not. We don't want all to be well in the world, at least not in places where the climate was unstable, because the author thinks the world was unwell because of the climate instability.

Answer choice (D) is a classic situation where the effect is not present when the cause is not present. This is a standard way to strengthen cause and effect arguments. You point out that this doesn't prove that conclusion, but this is a Strengthen question, not a Justify.

Robert Carroll