i'm having trouble with this inference question about climate and migration. I'm not quite sure whether this is a cause & effect or a sufficient/necessary type of question. it says "drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations" which to me implies cause and effect.
can someone please explain why choice (D) is correct and why (A) is incorrect, and how should one think about this?
PT38.S1.Q20 LR Forum
-
lrslayer
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:38 am
Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR
http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q20 ... c59a47fcc1Ocean64 wrote:i'm having trouble with this inference question about climate and migration. I'm not quite sure whether this is a cause & effect or a sufficient/necessary type of question. it says "drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations" which to me implies cause and effect.
can someone please explain why choice (D) is correct and why (A) is incorrect, and how should one think about this?
-
Ocean64
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm
Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR
so i guess it's a standard suff/nec type of problem. thanks!
-
Ocean64
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm
Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR
ok general question...when you have a cause & effect relationship, doesn't that mean that the given cause is THE ONLY THING than can cause the given effect?
example: training causes accuracy. what this should mean is that training comes before accuracy and it is the only thing that can cause accuracy and if i'm given accuracy i can know that it was caused by training, solely on the "training causes accuracy" statement if such a statement is given as a premise. can someone please confirm that?
this is why the business of "primary cause" is giving me such a hard time
example: training causes accuracy. what this should mean is that training comes before accuracy and it is the only thing that can cause accuracy and if i'm given accuracy i can know that it was caused by training, solely on the "training causes accuracy" statement if such a statement is given as a premise. can someone please confirm that?
this is why the business of "primary cause" is giving me such a hard time
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
senorhosh
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:45 am
Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR
No, it doesn't meant that's the ONLY cause.Ocean64 wrote:ok general question...when you have a cause & effect relationship, doesn't that mean that the given cause is THE ONLY THING than can cause the given effect?
example: training causes accuracy. what this should mean is that training comes before accuracy and it is the only thing that can cause accuracy and if i'm given accuracy i can know that it was caused by training, solely on the "training causes accuracy" statement if such a statement is given as a premise. can someone please confirm that?
this is why the business of "primary cause" is giving me such a hard time
Why A is incorrect: The stimulus states that drastic climate shifts ALWAYS cause migration. However, this does not mean migration is caused solely by climate shifts. Other reasons like can cause migration. Thus, we do not know if it's the PRIMARY cause.
For example:
Every time there's a tornado (climate change) John has to move to another state (migration). John moved 300 times in the past year, and 20 of those were because of tornadoes. However, the other 280 times were due to rabid dogs in the area.
The stimulus is still true yet climate change is not the primary cause
-
WhoIsDonDraper
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:19 am
Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR
Check out Dave's responses about how to select answer choices on LR. I think it will help you out. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=161914
Be careful of two things for must be true questions like this one.
1. Superlative language, or very strong language like "primary, most, largest, etc." That strong language is usually a good indicator of an incorrect answer choice since the stimulus generally doesn't give enough support to draw that much of a conclusion.
2. Comparisons are also very tricky. Always be cautious of comparisons between two things that are just mentioned in the stimulus. They are usually very difficult to make.
See if that helps.
Be careful of two things for must be true questions like this one.
1. Superlative language, or very strong language like "primary, most, largest, etc." That strong language is usually a good indicator of an incorrect answer choice since the stimulus generally doesn't give enough support to draw that much of a conclusion.
2. Comparisons are also very tricky. Always be cautious of comparisons between two things that are just mentioned in the stimulus. They are usually very difficult to make.
See if that helps.
-
Ocean64
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm
Re: PT38.S1.Q20 LR
i think i understand, although i could swear i learned it differently from PS.senorhosh wrote:No, it doesn't meant that's the ONLY cause.
do you guys see cause & effect as different and separate from Suff/Nec or do you think the two types of relationship are intertwined?
ex:
if it rains then the sidewalk will be wet.
rain causes the sidewalk to be wet.
both of these can be symbolized as such: R==>W
if the sidewalk is wet then you wont know whether it rained or weather its been hosed by someone. i think this is the same type of example senorhosh was making and that does make sense to me. the way PS taught it is that if you eliminate the cause then the effect will also be eliminated (assuming it's a valid C&E relationship), so if it doesn't rain, then the sidewalk will not be wet. i would quote PS's David Killoran if i still had the online lessons, but i don't. anyone else learned it this way?
