Bunuel
A group of mountain climbers was studied to determine how they were affected by diminished oxygen in the air at high altitudes. As they climbed past 6,100 meters above sea level, the climbers slurred words, took longer to understand simple sentences, and demonstrated poor judgment. This combination of worsened performances disproves the theory that the area of the brain controlling speech is distinct from that controlling other functions.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it overlooks the possibility that
(A) the climbers' performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning was impaired because oxygen deprivation affected their entire brains
(B) the climbers' performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning was better than average before they were studied
(C) the climbers showed different levels of impairment in their performance in speech, comprehension, and reasoning
(D) some of the effects described were apparent just before the climbers reached 6,100 meters
(E) many of the climbers had engaged in special training before the climb because they wanted to improve the efficiency with which their bodies use oxygen
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
No, no, no. You haven’t “disproven” ****. It’s possible that one cause (here, oxygen deprivation) can affect several distinct areas of the brain simultaneously. The flawed logic here is similar to saying, “A recent earthquake was felt in Los Angeles and San Francisco. This disproves the theory that Los Angeles and San Francisco are distinct cities.” Dumb, right? Good, that means we get it. Now all we have to do is look at the answer choices and find the best description of this flaw. Let’s see.
A) Yeah, this seems pretty good. This is like saying, “The earthquake could have affected the entire state.” This is very likely the correct answer.
B) What? Who cares if their performance was above, at, or below average before the study? This wouldn’t change the study’s relevance to the conclusion in any way.
C) I’m sure they did. So what?
D) Again: So what?
E) And yet again: So what?
This is an interesting question to study because the correct answer explains why the logic is bad and the incorrect answer choices are simply irrelevant. There’s nothing “wrong” with the incorrect answers per se, other than the fact that they don’t attack the logic of the argument. Any of them could be true, but even if they are true they don’t weaken the argument. Answer A, on the other hand, if true, makes the speaker look stupid.
So A is our answer.