## PT 1, Section 4 #10

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
applemaroon

Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:04 pm

### PT 1, Section 4 #10

Hi, can someone explain this question? I tried diagramming it, but still couldn't figure it out....

Thanks!

CardozoLaw09

Posts: 2183
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm

### Re: PT 1, Section 4 #10

.
Last edited by CardozoLaw09 on Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Manhattan LSAT Noah

Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

### Re: PT 1, Section 4 #10

applemaroon wrote:Hi, can someone explain this question? I tried diagramming it, but still couldn't figure it out....

Thanks!

I noticed this hasn't been explained in our explanation bank, so I just wrote it up. You probably got thrown by the first sentence, which is not matched in the answer.

Here goes:

Let's begin this match the flaw question by understanding the original, flawed argument.

We're told that high winds trigger hurricanes (w --> h), and that when there's a lot of rain, we get a lot of hurricanes. The conclusion is an attempt to explain that sentence: it must be that lots of rain promotes wind to cause hurricanes.

So, what's the flaw? This is another case of a correlation/causation switcheroo. We know from the second sentence that rain and hurricanes are correlated, but we don't know whether one causes the other, and if so, which causes which. It could be that hurricanes cause rain. The first sentence makes this question more difficult but it is simply connecting hurricane and wind (w --> h), and when the two are mentioned in the conclusion, we don't need to think about their connection.

It's tougher to use conclusion and premise mismatches with this question, as most answers seem to pass. However, only (A) and (C) have the same sort of vague causation language that we see in the original argument. Regardless, you'd probably rely on linkage issues, looking for the matching flaw.

(A) can be eliminated because it introduces a new term--healthy--in the conclusion, which is unlike the original.

(B) is similar to (A). Where did "dangerous" come from?

(C) is correct. We have entrepreneurial success and sports correlated, and the conclusion is that sports causes entrepreneurial success, while the causation could be the reverse, or something (type A personality?) could cause both.

(D) has a reversal of logic, not a correlation/causation flaw.

(E) is tempting. However, the premise is a causation, just like the conclusion. While this argument is flawed--we have no idea how Eastern European events will affect Central America, we just know it will affect it somehow--it's flawed in a different way.