Bunuel
Ray: Cynthia claims that her car’s trunk popped open because the car hit a pothole. Yet, she also acknowledged that the trunk in that car had popped open on several other occasions, and that on none of those other occasions had the car hit a pothole. Therefore, Cynthia mistakenly attributed the trunk’s popping open to the car’s having hit a pothole.
The reasoning in Ray’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism in that the argument
(A) fails to consider the possibility that the trunks of other cars may pop open when those cars hit potholes
(B) fails to consider the possibility that potholes can have negative effects on a car’s engine
(C) presumes, without providing justification, that if one event causes another, it cannot also cause a third event
(D) fails to consider the possibility that one type of event can be caused in many different ways
(E) presumes the truth of the claim that it is trying to establish
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
This is a cause and effect argument. Ray is trying to disagree with Cynthia’s assertion that her trunk opened
because of the pothole. Ray says, “Excuse me, Cynthia? Isn’t it true that your car is a piece of ****, and the trunk regularly pops open all the time even when it has
not hit a pothole? I rest my case: you did not hit a pothole this time either.”
But by that same logic, we could make this argument: “Um, Cynthia? Isn’t it true that millions of people get cancer who have never smoked? I rest my case: your uncle, who was a smoker, didn’t get his cancer via smoking.” That’s just absurd.
The problem here is that correlation doesn’t have to be
perfect in order for there to still be correlation. And while correlation doesn’t prove causation, it is a good start toward suspecting that there might be a causal relationship. On the LSAT, it is never a good counterargument to say, “Well, many smokers don’t get cancer,” or “Well, many cancer patients never smoked.” Even if those two things are true, smoking and cancer can still be
highly correlated, and smoking can, in fact,
cause cancer.
We’re asked to criticize Ray’s argument. I would boil down my objection into another example: “Hey Ray, you dumbass. Getting your face mauled off by a bear can still cause death, even if all previous deaths in the history of the world have been attributed to other causes.”
A) Huh? Other cars are not relevant.
B) The engine of the car is also not relevant.
C) This is closer, but I don’t see what “third event” Ray ever mentioned.
D) Yes. Ray has failed to recognize that cancer can be caused by a lot of other things and still also be caused by smoking. Ray has failed to recognize that death can be caused by a lot of other things and still also be caused by getting your face mauled off by a bear. Ray has failed to recognize that even if Cynthia’s car is a horrific piece of ****, and the trunk regularly pops open every time the breeze exceeds 2 MPH, the trunk, in this instance, could still have been caused to open by hitting a pothole. Love it.
E) Nah, this would be the answer if the argument had said, “The 49ers are the best football team because they are the best in the league at playing football.” That’s definitely bad logic (circular reasoning) but it’s not
Ray’s bad logic.
Our answer is D.