- Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:38 am
Sure thing, asuper! All of the theories described In this passage are about the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs. It's one giant causal argument! To weaken any causal argument, one might suggest an alternate cause, or show the cause occurring and the effect not occurring, or the effect occurring at a time when the cause does not, or showing that the purported cause and effect could be reversed, or showing that there might be a problem with the data that was used to support the causal claim.
Answer B is telling us that the cause, volcanic eruption, has occurred many times without the corresponding effect, extinctions, also occurring. That's a classic way to weaken a causal argument, and it's what makes answer B the best answer of the bunch here.
Answer E is a trap. Just because marine species are more vulnerable to sudden changes than gradual changes doesn't mean a gradual change couldn't be the cause of their extinction. I'm more vulnerable to indigestion when I eat jalapenos than when I eat tomatoes, but tomatoes could still upset my tummy!
Use those five casual attacks to weaken any casual argument, whether in RC or in LR, and you'll be well on the way to mastering causality as it's used in the LSAT. Good luck, keep pounding!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam