Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardCorrelation vs. Causation

Anthropologists analyzing the ancient civilization of Tarsia observed that historical eras characterized by the widespread cultivation of drought-resistant grain varieties consistently coincided with periods of severe economic contraction. The researchers noted that these specialized grains demanded significantly more labor to harvest than traditional crops. From this, they conclude that the transition to these drought-resistant crops drained labor from other critical sectors of Tarsian society, directly causing the observed economic contractions.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the researchers' argument?

  1. It fails to consider whether the environmental conditions prompting the adoption of specialized grains were themselves responsible for the economic downturn.Answer
  2. B
    It takes for granted that the labor diverted to harvest the specialized grains could not have been replaced by an influx of labor from neighboring regions.
  3. C
    It equivocates with respect to the concept of an economic contraction, using the term to refer both to a loss of labor in specific sectors and to an overall societal decline.
  4. D
    It inappropriately infers that an increase in the proportion of societal labor devoted to agriculture necessarily results in a lower absolute economic output.
  5. E
    It confuses a condition that is sufficient to cause an economic contraction with a condition that is merely necessary for an economic contraction.

Answer

The correct answer identifies that the argument overlooks a common cause (a third variable) for both phenomena: the environmental conditions (such as a drought) that necessitated the drought-resistant grains likely caused the economic contraction as well.
The correct answer accurately describes the classic 'third variable' or 'common cause' flaw. The anthropologists observe that X (drought-resistant grains) and Y (economic contraction) happen together, and conclude that X causes Y. However, they completely ignore the possibility of Z (a severe drought). A drought would perfectly explain why they started using drought-resistant crops, and it would also independently explain why the economy contracted. By failing to consider this underlying environmental trigger, the argument's causal leap is deeply flawed.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premise 1: Widespread use of drought-resistant grains correlates with economic contraction. Premise 2: These grains require more labor. Conclusion: The transition to these crops caused the economic contractions.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to evaluate the logical relationship between the evidence and the claim.
2
Analyze the method of reasoning.
The author takes two correlated historical events and infers that one caused the other, using the 'labor drain' as a hypothetical mechanism to make the causal claim sound plausible.
Identifying a causal claim based on a correlation immediately highlights the most likely logical vulnerabilities.
3
Determine the structural flaw.
Whenever an author assumes causation from correlation, they overlook alternative explanations: reverse causation, coincidence, or a third common cause. The term 'drought-resistant' strongly implies an external environmental factor (a drought) was present.
Anticipating the flaw before looking at the choices prevents being tricked by sophisticated distractors.
4
Evaluate the answer choices against the identified flaw.
The correct option points out the 'third variable' flaw—that the environmental condition (drought) caused BOTH the adoption of new grains AND the economic ruin.
Matching the anticipated logical error to the abstract language used in LSAT flaw questions ensures accuracy.

Key Concept

Correlation vs. Causation (Third Variable / Common Cause)
Rate this question

Topics

Correlation vs. Causation

More questions from this topic