Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorWeaken

Civil Engineer: To reduce groundwater seepage that was degrading structural foundations in the historic district of Oakhaven, the municipal water authority installed permeable pavement across all surrounding pedestrian plazas two years ago. Since the installation, average basement water ingress reports from property owners have declined by over 60 percent. Given that annual rainfall levels remained consistent with historical averages during both years, the permeable pavement installation was responsible for the decline in water ingress.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the civil engineer's argument?

  1. A
    Pedestrian plazas in neighboring districts that did not install permeable pavement experienced no reduction in basement water ingress reports over the same two-year period.
  2. B
    Annual precipitation in Oakhaven was unevenly distributed across several individual months during the two-year period, despite the total yearly volume matching historical averages.
  3. Shortly before the permeable pavement was laid, the municipal water authority completed extensive repairs that sealed several chronically leaking water mains beneath the historic district.Cevap
  4. D
    Permeable pavement has never been shown to completely eliminate groundwater accumulation beneath building foundations in any urban environment.
  5. E
    The municipal expenditure required to install and maintain permeable pavement far exceeded the district's initial budgetary projections.

Cevap

The statement showing that extensive repairs sealed chronically leaking subterranean water mains beneath the historic district just prior to the pavement installation most seriously weakens the argument.
The correct response introduces an alternative explanation for the observed reduction in basement flooding. If subterranean water mains beneath the historic district were leaking heavily and were sealed immediately before the pavement was laid, the repair of those mains—rather than the permeable pavement—could fully account for the 60 percent decline in basement water ingress.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Isolate the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premises: Permeable pavement was installed two years ago; basement water ingress reports fell by over 60 percent; annual rainfall remained at historical averages. Conclusion: The permeable pavement installation caused the decline in water ingress.
Deconstructing the argument reveals the underlying causal claim linking the installation to the outcome.
2
Identify the primary logical vulnerability or unstated assumption.
The author assumes that no other concurrent event or intervention was the true cause of the reduced subterranean moisture.
Causal arguments on the LSAT are vulnerable to alternate causes that explain the observed correlation.
3
Evaluate the choices for a plausible alternative explanation.
Sealing heavily leaking underground water mains right before the pavement was installed provides a strong competing explanation for the reduction in groundwater ingress.
Demonstrating an alternate source of subterranean water was eliminated severs the causal attribution to the pavement.

Anahtar Kavram

Alternative Causal Explanations in Logical Reasoning
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Weaken

Bu konudan daha fazla soru