Bunuel wrote:
Dr. Theresa Pagano, a biologist, has found that the checkerspot butterfly is becoming more prevalent in regions farther north than before and less prevalent in regions farther south. The northward shift of the butterflies is almost perfectly correlated with the northward shift of the warm zones in the global climate, and Dr. Pagano has therefore concluded that the changing climate is responsible for the northward movement of the butterflies.
Each of the following, if true, supports Dr. Pagano’s reasoning EXCEPT:
(A) Checkerspot butterfly colonies observed under laboratory conditions are critically affected by small temperature changes.
(B) Climate does not affect checkerspot butterflies themselves directly, but the plants they depend on thrive best in warm climates.
(C) Experimental evidence suggests that the checkerspot butterfly can adapt easily to a wide range of temperatures and geographic conditions.
(D) In recent years, abnormally low average temperatures have been correlated with a reduced checkerspot butterfly population.
(E) Several studies have shown that several other species of butterfly closely related to the checkerspot butterfly survive only in warm climates.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
CORRELATION = CAUSATION ALERT!!!
The scientist is not wrong for
suspecting that the near-perfect correlation between weather changes and butterfly habitat changes indicates that weather might be causing the butterflies to move. But she is not justified in taking the correlation as conclusive proof that the weather is causing the butterfly shift. We have three standard responses to any correlation = causation argument: 1) Correlation doesn’t prove causation, you dumbass! 2) How do you know that you haven’t reversed the cause and effect? How do you know the butterflies aren’t causing the weather to change? This might be nonsensical in real life, but logically it is a possibility that
must be eliminated before concluding that the causal relationship in fact goes the other way. 3) How do you know some third thing isn’t causing both of the first two things? For example, how do you know that pollution isn’t causing both the weather to change and the butterflies to move? If that’s true, then weather is not causing the butterflies to move—pollution is.
It’s a strengthen EXCEPT question, which means that four answers will support the doctor’s terrible argument, and one answer will either weaken the argument or be entirely irrelevant. (We’re asked to pick the one that weakens, or is irrelevant.)
A) This would strengthen the argument slightly, because it suggests that butterflies do care about weather (which suggests they might move in response to weather).
B) This also strengthens the argument slightly, because it again suggests that butterflies care about weather, at least insofar as it affects the plants they depend on (which suggests they might move in response to weather).
C) This would weaken the argument, because it suggests that butterflies don’t give a damn about the weather, which suggests they would
not move in response to weather. I bet this is the answer.
D) This strengthens the argument slightly, because it suggests that butterflies do care about weather, and might move in response to weather.
E) This strengthens the argument slightly, because it suggests that other species of butterfly care about weather, so by analogy we have reason to suspect that this species of butterfly might care about weather.
Our answer is C, because it actually weakens the argument while the four other answers strengthen. Note: they’re not perfect strengtheners, but they all strengthen a little bit, while C weakens.
close
25 Oct 2021, 01:30
20%
(01:47)
wrong 
