to the top

#2 - Advertisement: Anyone who thinks moisturizers

Jerrymakehabit
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:54 pm
Points: 52

Can someone please explain why A is not correct? It looks perfect to me based on the analysis below.

The premise presents about earth:
Not cracked :arrow: regular infusions of moisture

The conclusion presents about face that "skin should be protected.. give it..."
regular infusions of moisture :arrow: Not cracked

Thanks
Jerry
Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:01 pm
Points: 2,387

As I see it, Jerry, the problem with answer A is that is too focused on conditional reasoning, while the argument in the stimulus is a mix of a conditional premise and causal conclusion, coupled with a really lousy analogy (which stands out like a sore thumb). There is a conditional premise, which you diagrammed (if the earth isn't cracked, it must have gotten moisture; if no moisture, then cracked), but then the author shifts to a causal claim - "the ravages caused by lack of moisture." The author isn't saying that a cracked earth proves no moisture, so uncracked skin proves moisture (a mistaken negation of sorts). He's really saying there is a causal relationship between a lack of moisture and cracked skin, based on a causal relationship between drought and a cracked earth. Causal arguments aren't flawed because of conditional reasoning, so answer A is just focused on the wrong type of reasoning! Instead, go for the obvious answer - the analogy just plain stinks.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
Jerrymakehabit
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:54 pm
Points: 52

Adam Tyson wrote:As I see it, Jerry, the problem with answer A is that is too focused on conditional reasoning, while the argument in the stimulus is a mix of a conditional premise and causal conclusion, coupled with a really lousy analogy (which stands out like a sore thumb). There is a conditional premise, which you diagrammed (if the earth isn't cracked, it must have gotten moisture; if no moisture, then cracked), but then the author shifts to a causal claim - "the ravages caused by lack of moisture." The author isn't saying that a cracked earth proves no moisture, so uncracked skin proves moisture (a mistaken negation of sorts). He's really saying there is a causal relationship between a lack of moisture and cracked skin, based on a causal relationship between drought and a cracked earth. Causal arguments aren't flawed because of conditional reasoning, so answer A is just focused on the wrong type of reasoning! Instead, go for the obvious answer - the analogy just plain stinks.


Thanks Adam! You are right "Causal arguments aren't flawed because of conditional reasoning" and this question is a total mix.