LSAT 124 – Section 2 – Question 09

LSAT 124 - Section 2 - Question 09

December 2007

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:00

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT124 S2 Q09	+LR +Exp	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Causal Reasoning +CausR	A 6% 155 B 9% 158 C 81% 163 D 4% 160 E 1% 158	128 142 156	+Medium	145.571 +SubsectionMedium

Phoebe: There have been many reported sightings of strange glowing lights, but a number of these sightings have a straightforward, natural explanation. They occurred clustered in time and location around the epicenters of three earthquakes, and so were almost certainly earthquake lights, a form of ball lightning caused by stresses in the ground.

Quincy: I am skeptical that the association between the lights and the earthquakes is anything more than a coincidence. The theory that ground stresses related to earthquakes can cause any kind of lightning is extremely speculative.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Quincy concludes that Phoebe’s explanation of strange glowing lights as earthquake-induced is unconvincing. This is supported by the claim that the mechanism Phoebe proposes for her explanation—ball lightning forming as a result of ground stresses—is “extremely speculative.”

Describe Method of Reasoning

Quincy counters Phoebe’s argument by casting doubt on the mechanism she proposes to explain a phenomenon. By pointing out that earthquake-related ground stresses are not known to cause any kind of lightning, Quincy undermines Phoebe’s conclusion that the strange lights were “almost certainly” caused by earthquakes.

takes a correlation to be a causal relation

Quincy doesn’t say that any causal relationship exists based on a correlation. In fact, he’s arguing against Phoebe’s claim that a causal relationship exists.

challenges the accuracy of the data about sightings that Phoebe takes for granted

Quincy doesn’t challenge the accuracy of any of Phoebe’s data about the sightings. He accepts that the sightings have happened; he only doubts her explanation for the phenomenon.

criticizes Phoebe’s explanation as unsubstantiated

Quincy criticizes Phoebe’s explanation of strange glowing lights being ball lightning caused by earthquakes, because it is founded on a speculative—meaning unsubstantiated—theory about the potential of earthquakes to cause lightning.

offers an explanation of the glowing lights different from Phoebe’s

Quincy doesn’t offer any alternative explanation of the glowing lights, only casts doubt on the plausibility of Phoebe’s explanation.

accuses Phoebe of introducing irrelevant information

Quincy doesn’t claim that Phoebe has introduce any irrelevant information, only that she has interpreted the information in a questionable way based on speculative theories.

LSAT 124 – Section 2 – Question 09

LSAT 124 - Section 2 - Question 09

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 124 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel