OA OE
26. (B)
One last question, and in it we’re faced with another apparent discrepancy. This time,
however, we’re looking for the one choice that doesn’t help explain the unusual result or
finding. First, we get some background info: smoking in bed has long been a major cause of
home fires. And here’s the surprise: even though cigarette smoking has significantly
declined over the last twenty years, the number of people killed in home fires hasn’t
declined accordingly. There are at least four good reasons why this is so, and we’ll see
those below in the wrong answer choices. But we’re looking for the one that doesn’t help
solve the mystery. And (B) could only deepen the mystery: if the fires caused by smoking
in bed tend to take place after the home’s occupants have fallen asleep, then home fires
caused by smoking would seem even deadlier, since it’s hard to evacuate your home when
you’re asleep. If fires caused by smoking are especially deadly, then it is all the more
confusing that a reduction in smoking has not led to a reduction of the number of people
killed in home fires. So (B) is no help, which means that it is the credited response.
(A) If (A) is true, then bed-smoking fires aren’t likely to cause many fire-related deaths in
the first place. Under these circumstances, a decline in smoking wouldn’t be expected to
result in a corresponding decline in home-fire deaths.
(C) picks up on the scope shift between the first and second sentences: There’s been a
significant decline in cigarette smoking in general, but that doesn’t mean the decline
includes the subset of people who smoke in bed. If (C) is true, we’d expect most of the bedsmokers
to keep on smoking, which would certainly help resolve the apparent
discrepancy.
(D) and (E) both help to resolve the paradox by offering other reasons why deaths from fires
have increased lately. If kitchen fires or greater population densities are responsible for
more home-fire deaths than before, the fact that no decline in fire deaths has accompanied
the decline in cigarette smoking is far less surprising.
• Once again, the wrong choices offer a plethora of alternative explanations (see
section A, Q. 20 for another situation loaded with alternative explanations). After all,
what better way to resolve a paradox than to find a different, unmentioned, and
plausible explanation for the surprising result? Understanding the concept of the
alternative explanation can help you to answer Logical Flaw, Assumption, Paradox,
and even Strengthen/Weaken questions. Make sure you keep this important concept
in the forefront of your mind whenever working on
LSAT Logical Reasoning.
• Keep your eyes peeled for scope shifts; sometimes they’re fairly subtle. Bed-smoking
is not the same as cigarette smoking in general. “Home fires” from the first sentence
is not the same as “people killed from home fires” in the second. Understanding
these subtle distinctions when they exist in an argument will help you to assess that
argument correctly and to answer any question the testmakers choose to throw at
you.
close
100% (02:55) correct
