- Posts: 50
- Joined: Jul 30, 2020
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