to the top

#7 - Dana intentionally watered the plant every other day

LSAT Leader
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:43 pm
Points: 57

I felt E was pretty parralel. I completely eliminated C. I did not diagram because I did not know how. What would the diagram look like for this and why is E incorrect?
Thank You
Eric Ockert
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:46 pm
Points: 148


Thanks for the question! I don't think you would need to diagram this argument. It is probably best with an abstraction. Essentially, the argument goes:

Premise: Dana intended to do X.
Premise: X caused Y.

Conclusion: Dana intended to do Y.

The flaw here is that, even though you intended to do something that resulted in another outcome, that does not necessarily mean you intended to create that outcome. Answer choice (C) has that logic. It could be mapped out as:

Premise: Restaurant owner intended to take off menu item. (RO intended to do X)
Premise: Removal of menu item caused disappointment in Jerry. (X caused Y)

Conclusion: Restaurant owner intended to disappoint Jerry. (RO intended to do Y.)

Answer choice (E) on the other hand would look like:

Premise: Power plant raised water temperature. (PP caused X).
Premise: Whatever raised the temperature caused the decrease in fish (the power plant is what raised the temp). (If you caused X, then you caused Y.)

Conclusion: The power plant caused the decrease in fish. (PP caused Y).

This is actually a valid argument. It does not quite match the stimulus.
Eric Ockert
PowerScore LSAT/GMAT/SAT Instructor