LSAT Explanation PT 29, S1, Q17: Columnist: It is impossible for there

LSAT Question Stem

The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

The question type for this problem is Flaw, which means we need to identify the flaw in the argument's reasoning.

First, let's break down the argument in the passage. The columnist claims that it is impossible for there to be real evidence that lax radiation standards at nuclear reactors contributed to the increase in cancer rates near such sites. The reasoning behind this claim is that individual cases of cancer could be caused by various factors, such as radiation, environmental toxins, smoking, poor diet, or genetic factors. Here, the columnist is making a conclusion about the aggregate (overall) causal uncertainty based on the individual causal uncertainty.

To help understand this concept, let's use a simple example. Imagine a school where the overall test scores have dropped. The columnist's argument is like saying it's impossible to know if a new teaching method contributed to the drop in test scores because individual students' scores could be affected by various factors, such as their study habits, sleep, and motivation.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is it possible to determine a causal relationship between lax radiation standards and increased cancer rates using statistical evidence?"

Now, let's analyze the answer choices:

a) The argument fails to recognize that there may be convincing statistical evidence even if individual causes cannot be known.

This answer choice is correct. It addresses the flaw in the argument that the columnist overlooks the possibility of using statistical evidence to determine a causal relationship between lax radiation standards and increased cancer rates, even if individual causes of cancer remain uncertain.

b) The argument inappropriately presupposes that what follows a certain phenomenon was caused by that phenomenon.

This answer choice is incorrect. The columnist does not assume a causal relationship based on the sequence of events. Instead, they argue that it is impossible to determine a causal relationship due to the uncertainty of individual cancer causes.

c) The argument inappropriately draws a conclusion about causes of cancer in general from evidence drawn from a particular case of cancer.

This answer choice is also incorrect. The columnist does not use evidence from a specific cancer case to make a generalization about all cancer cases. Instead, they discuss the general uncertainty of individual cancer causes.

d) The argument ignores other possible causes of the increase in cancer rates near the nuclear reactor complexes.

This answer choice is not correct. The columnist does not conclude that lax standards were the cause of higher cancer rates; they argue that it is impossible to determine if lax standards were a cause. Therefore, ignoring alternate causes is not a flaw in this argument.

e) The argument concludes that a claim about a causal connection is false on the basis of a lack of evidence for the claim.

This answer choice is incorrect. The columnist does not conclude that a causal claim is false; instead, they argue that it is impossible for real evidence of a causal claim to exist. This is different from concluding that the claim is false due to a lack of evidence.

In summary, the correct answer is choice (a), as it identifies the flaw in the argument's reasoning, which is the failure to recognize the possibility of using statistical evidence to determine a causal relationship despite individual causal uncertainty.