Bunuel wrote:
TV meteorologist: Our station’s weather forecasts are more useful and reliable than those of the most popular news station in the area. After all, the most important question for viewers in this area is whether it will rain, and on most of the occasions when we have forecast rain for the next day, we have been right. The same cannot be said for either of our competitors.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the meteorologist’s argument?
(A) The meteorologist’s station forecast rain more often than did the most popular news station in the area.
(B) The less popular of the competing stations does not employ any full-time meteorologists.
(C) The most popular news station in the area is popular because of its investigative news reports.
(D) The meteorologist’s station has a policy of not making weather forecasts more than three days in advance.
(E) On most of the occasions when the meteorologist’s station forecast that it would not rain, at least one of its competitors also forecast that it would not rain.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
Tricky one here, but I see the flaw. What if the TV meteorologist had only forecast rain once last year? What if he waited until it had rained for three days straight, then checked the Doppler and observed that it was raining everywhere in a 500-mile radius, then walked outside and observed even
darker clouds on the horizon, and then made the bold step of forecasting rain for the following day. And then resumed forecasting sunshine for every other day that entire year. If that were true, then at the end of the year wouldn’t the meteorologist have been able to say, “On most of the occasions when we have forecast rain for the next day, we have been right”? Yes, he would. But his weather report would, nevertheless, be worthless, because he would have had about 100 rainy days where he forecast sun mixed in with his one hit on forecasting rain.
We’re asked to strengthen the meteorologist’s conclusion that his forecasts are the most “useful and reliable.” Since we’ve laid out such a devastating objection above (“Dude, you only forecast rain once last year”) I bet the correct answer is going to protect against that weakener. (One great way to strengthen an argument is to protect it from attack.) So something like, “The meteorologist was correct on as many
days as his competitors,” would be a good answer. He’s already presented evidence that he was correct most of the time when he called rain, which is not true of his competitors. But we don’t know how often he called rain. Let’s see.
A) Exactly. If this is true, then the guy called rain more often
and was correct more often than his competitors. That means this guy knows his ****. But without both of those facts, we don’t know if he’s good or not. I love this answer.
B) Huh? Not relevant. The only thing relevant is accuracy, not education.
C) Also not relevant. The only thing relevant is accuracy.
D) This would be a **** good idea if it were true. Long-term weather forecasts are worthless; trust me on this, I’m a golfer. But even if it were true, it would have no bearing on whether this station is the best at forecasting weather the next day.
E) Who cares if other stations followed his lead most of the time? That doesn’t prove anything.
Our answer is A, because if it’s true then (when added to his other evidence) it
proves that this guy is good at calling rain vs. no rain.