Cause-and-effect arguments have cause-and-effect answers

Let’s start with a quick refresh on LSAT strategy: On Logical Reasoning, the procedural part starts with checking the prompt before reading the passage. It looks like this:

1. Check the prompt for how the right answer will relate to the argument. You know the answer will generally either describe the support and/or conclusion in the passage, or it will be support or a conclusion that fits into the passage.
2. Read the passage and tag each statement as either conclusion, support, or background. You know conclusions get support from other statements, and background doesn’t give or get support. It’s just there for context or clarity.
3. Carefully map the wording of the answer choices to the wording of the passage. You know everything stated in every right answer will align to statements made in the passage, so anything that doesn’t gets confidently eliminated.

Got it? Let’s do this!

*PrepTest 140 is available for FREE on LawHub even if you don’t have a subscription or access through another prep app.

PROMPT: How will the right answer relate to the argument?

People have given me various word salad-y answers to this question the first time we work on a “strengthen” question together. But it’s actually very straightforward, so let’s make sure we agree: the right answer will support the conclusion in the passage. Now let’s tag that conclusion.

PASSAGE: Tag the conclusion/s and support

Climatologist: [BACKGROUND]. [SUPPORT]. Therefore, [CONCLUSION].

The first sentence is background, but the argument has definitely started once the author says something “will cause” another thing. You gotta catch it whenever a passage says there’s cause-and-effect. It’s one of the two or three most common patterns in LSAT arguments.

In this passage, the chain of cause-and-effect continues right into the conclusion: “the mountain snowpack will probably melt…, leading to greater…” This cause-and-effect chain is what we need to find support for in the right answer.

ANSWERS: Carefully map the wording of the answers to the passage

(A) …increase in the average amount of annual precipitation…

This doesn’t say anything about the snowpack melting OR the greater spring flooding, so it really doesn’t map to the cause-and-effect we want to support. Also, lawyers will note that the passage talked about the “proportion” of precipitation that’s rain vs. snow, but the “average amount” of precipitation never comes up. Those are not the same.

(B) …after relatively mild winters, the melting of snowpacks has led to greater spring flooding…

I’ve had many people in coaching sessions tell me they eliminated this one because they thought “other mountainous regions” was irrelevant. But what does the passage say kickstarted the cause-and-effect chain? “global warming”. They expect you to know that means the same effect would be happening in other regions.

Otherwise, the quoted wording above maps just beautifully to the background about warmer winter temps, and to both parts of the conclusion. If this is true it definitely supports the cause-and-effect the author claimed in the conclusion. Perfection.

(C) On average…there is less storable water…

Again, “on average” is a different kind of data from what’s mentioned in the passage. More critically, this answer jumps to the “less storable water” bit but doesn’t say it’s because of the snowpack melting, so it doesn’t really align to the cause-and-effect in the conclusion. And if that didn’t bother you, then the comparison between different areas of the Rocky Mountains should have, since that doesn’t map to any comparison made in the passage.

(D) On average, in the regions of the world with the mildest…

“On average” again I don’t like. But also be careful with what this says: “mildest winters” is changing the subject. The passage only says the temps are “likely to increase”, but doesn’t say anything like mild-est. Answers that use superlatives and extremes like that will only map to passages that use the same extreme wording.

(E) The larger a mountain snowpack is…

Please stop reading at “The larger…” There is no mention of the size of the snowpack, let alone whether it’s getting bigger.

(B) is the correct answer.

The big takeaway: Arguments about cause-and-effect will have right answers about the same cause-and-effect

If you recognize an argument is about cause-and-effect, you’ll know that same cause-and-effect is what you’re looking for in the right answer. That’s a huge advantage in the battle against wasting time reading the answers a million times, so start training to spot cause-and-effect every time if you aren’t already.

Common patterns in this question:

• Cause-and-effect. It’s definitely a thing. It shows up most on “strengthen” and “weaken” questions, but it’s not uncommon on “flaw” and “assumption” questions, and it’s fair game basically everywhere. For extra credit, you want to recognize when an author makes a cause-and-effect conclusion based on support that’s just a correlation, and when an author concludes that something is the only cause of something else.

The plan will work if you do.