LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Khodi7531
  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Mar 14, 2018
|
#45603
I got rid of B because it said, "no known natural cause" ...


My prephrase was meteorites would have all struck simultaneously...or would have been impossible to hit in a straight line at different times - so their ages would be different. I realized "all different ages" was important and first looked for that but couldn't find it anywhere in the answers.

Now sure how I missed it in B but I think I stopped reading answer B after natural cause because even though I knew it was attacking the meteorite reference which would strengthen, a natural cause can also be associated with Volcanic events.

So I thought it can't be that since it's weakening the evidence but also our conclusion we're trying to strengthen.

So what am I missing? Cause I don't want to hear, "it's the best answer" because that doesn't matter. It isn't the best answer if it's destroying our argument by saying a meteorite or a volcano can't make these craters. Because that is what it's saying.

I get the other answers also suck but this just is fundamentally wrong in a big way.
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 3916
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#47279
The author is arguing that it is unlikely that the straight lines of craters of different ages could be caused by a combination of volcanoes and meteors, khodi, and concludes that it must therefore be just volcanoes that caused this to happen. To strengthen that cause, it would help if we were to eliminate a possible alternate cause, right? Answer B helps do that by telling us that it probably wasn't just meteors that did it.

Let's get a little abstract on this and see if it helps:

Premise: A and B are probably not both involved
Conclusion: it's just A

How do we strengthen that it's just A, when all we know is it's not a combination of the two?

Strengthen: It's not B

Note that this does not prove the conclusion, because it fails to consider other alternate causes, like C, D, and E. But that doesn't matter, because we aren't looking to justify the conclusion, but only to strengthen it. Eliminating an obvious possible alternate cause - it was just meteors - helps out plenty!

p.s. Also, it's the best answer. Sorry, I had to!
 ericj_williams
  • Posts: 79
  • Joined: Jan 19, 2020
|
#89133
Can someone help me understand why I'm crazy?

On B I re-arranged it as follows:

Person 1: Suppose there were eight meteorite craters of different ages

Person 2: Ok, go on...

Person 1: There is no known natural cause likely to account for this.

Person 2: "You mean like meteorites?"

How can meteorites not explain eight meteorite craters in a row of different ages?
User avatar
 Chantal
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: Jun 22, 2021
|
#90417
ericj_williams wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:02 pm Can someone help me understand why I'm crazy?

On B I re-arranged it as follows:

Person 1: Suppose there were eight meteorite craters of different ages

Person 2: Ok, go on...

Person 1: There is no known natural cause likely to account for this.

Person 2: "You mean like meteorites?"

How can meteorites not explain eight meteorite craters in a row of different ages?
Hey! I figured I'd try to answer your question, hopefully this helps. My understanding of B was that it was saying that, as far as the current research goes, eight meteorite craters of different ages forming a straight line cannot happen naturally, hence the "no known natural cause" part. Perhaps meteorites can naturally cause craters of different ages in a squiggly line pattern, but it definitely cannot form the straight line as mentioned in the stimulus. Perhaps meteorites can cause craters of different ages in a straight line if engineered by superpowerful humans, but then that wouldn't be a natural cause. B is not saying that meteorites aren't a natural cause in general. It's saying that meteorites, as we have observed, cannot account for the type of craters discussed in the stimulus.

Since the stimulus already establishes that the craters were caused by either volcanoes or meteorites, and answer choice B rules out the possibility of meteorites, then we strengthen the conclusion that the craters must have been caused by volcanoes.
User avatar
 evelineliu
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: Sep 06, 2021
|
#90479
Hi Eric and Chantal,

Whenever an author argues that Z was caused by Y and not by X, we can strengthen the argument w/ more evidence that further supports Y (volcanic events) or further calls Z into question (meteorites) as the probable cause. (B) does this by making it very unlikely that meteorites were responsible. This doesn't prove that volcanoes were responsible, but (B) is correct because it eliminates a plausible alternative, which is a common way to improve arguments on the LSAT.

Best,
Eveline

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.