Q20 - TV meteorologist: Our station's weather

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Strengthens

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Our forecasts are more useful/reliable than the most popular station's.
Evidence: We can claim that "most of the time we predict rain the next day, it rains". They can't. And rain is the most important question for viewers in this area.

Answer Anticipation:
One possible line of objection is "just because you do the MOST IMPORTANT part better doesn't mean you're better overall". Perhaps gas mileage was the most important consideration I had looking for a car. That doesn't mean that I automatically favor a car that gets 50mpg over one that gets 45mpg. Maybe the lower mileage car is "good enough gas mileage" and I prefer so many other things about it that I ultimately find it to be the better choice. Another possible line of objection is to try to fight the idea that Our rain forecasts are better than Theirs. The statistic is phrased in a really weird way. WHEN we predict rain the next day, we're right most of the time. Well, what if we are just super conservative about predicting rain and we only predict it when we're sure it's coming? To know which station has the more accurate forecats, we need to know how accurate we are when we predict rain AND how accurate we are when we don't predict rain.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yes! This works by ruling out the objection we raised about our station playing it extra safe and only predicting rain when it was all but certain. If we predict rain more often than the most popular station, then if we're being conservative, they're being even MORE conservative. So it makes it seem like we are superior at predicting rain. We do it more often and we are more often correct than they are.

(B) If anything, this feels more like weaken. Our station is the less popular; if we don't have full-time meteorologists, we'd be more likely to think our weather forecasts are NOT as good.

(C) Just becauase the most popular station gets its popularity from its investigative news reports, this tells us nothing about whether our station or theirs has more accurate weather forecasts.

(D) This 3 days or less policy drifts more towards that Objection we raised: maybe we're overly conservative at predicting rain. But more imporantly, the 3 day policy is just out of scope because it doesn't help us judge the relative merits of our forecasts vs. theirs, and it has nothing to do with the "rain next day" stat the gets cited in the evidence.

(E) We're only comparing our station to the most popular news station. So bringing in "at least one of our competitors" is irrelevant, unless that competitor happens to be the most popular station.

Takeaway/Pattern: The hardest correct answers to Strengthen questions tend to be those that Rule Out a Possible Objection. This commonly happens when an author interprets a statistic a certain way. If we can think of an alternative way to to explain/interpret the same stat, then the correct answer will often go in the opposite direction of that objection. Here, the stat was "when we predict rain the next day, we're right a higher % of the time than when the popular station predicts rain the next day". The author's interpretation was that we simply have more accurate/reliable forecasts. Our possible objection was, "maybe we work to make that statistic look as flatteringly accurate as possible by being ultra conservative and only predicting rain the next day when it's all but certain." (A) went in the opposite direction from that objection.

#officialexplanation

[cdc3d]

This is (hopefully) my last question on this test. As much as I hate to admit it, I really struggled with this question. I initially ruled out all of the answer choices, and then went, "Woops. Hm. Something's not right in Hoo-ville..." I re-read the stimulus and questions, and I must be missing something here. The answer choices seem irrelevant to the argument, but I know that can't be right. I chose answer choice (A) (which luckily happened to be the right answer!), but I chose it on semantic grounds rather than on the basis of its logical impact on the stimulus. (A) was the only answer that directly referenced both the "most popular news station" and the "meteorologist's station" and compared the two. The other answer choices referred to one or the other or referred more broadly to "competitors."

So what am I missing?

Thanks!
-Chelsea

[aileenann]

Hi Chelsea,

Thanks for your question and for giving me some info about your process.

One thing to keep in mind from the beginning is that we are looking for the answer choice that will most strengthen the conclusion, meaning that there could be multiple answer choices that do so here (although you didn't find that to be the case - more on that below). The other thing is that it's really important to identify the conclusion and keep it in mind when evaluating the answer choices. Here the conclusion is, "Our station's weather forecasts are more useful and reliable than those of the most popular news station in the area." Or to put it in abbreviated form: our weather forecasts are the best."

(A) helps because it fills in a part of the argument that might be problematic initially. Basically, in the argument the author contends that "our" station has a higher accuracy rating than the other weather stations. However, this could be in theory just because our station only predicts rain when it's really obvious (dark and stormy clouds overhead) and therefore potentially less helpful. Also generally if the station accurately predicts rain when it makes the prediction but often does not predict rain when it does rain, that is also not helpful. Most important would seem to be getting information that it will rain every time it will rain. (A) closes this gap somewhat by saying that the reason for our station's accuracy is at least not something silly such as only predicting rain once it is on the verge of raining.

(B) is out of scope - we don't really care whether the meteorologists work part-time or full-time.

(C) is also out of scope.

(D) is neutral because knowing the time limit for one station does not tell use about the other stations, and the conclusion is a comparative one.

(E) is neutral - it might seem more than neutral at first, but our conclusion is about accuracy. (E) does not actually give us any basis for accuracy but only tells us that the stations behave similarly in their non-rain forecasts.

I hope this helps. Feel free to repost if you have further questions! Good luck on the LSAT tomorrow!

[jack]

I have to admit that I eliminated A right away, thinking that it actually weakens the argument. My thinking was that if they predict rain more often than everyone else then they will most likely be correct more often. They reference forecasting rain and being right in the stimulus as opposed to their overall accuracy.

Of course, this did not leave attractive options, but I thought that C made some sense in that it explains that the most popular show is watched for its reporting as opposed to its meteorological prowess.

Couldn't A be seen both ways? How can I guard against this mistake next time.

[crazinessinabox]

I am most certainly not an instructor, who would have much more articulate explanations, but I spent a bit of time trying to figure out why A strengthened and felt it would be useful to try to write out. The obvious disclaimer: these are just my thoughts and I would more than welcome someone making corrections etc. Thanks!

Conclusion: Our forecasts are "more useful and reliable" than the most popular news station

Why?
(1) Most important question for viewers is whether it will rain (not necessarily whether it won't rain. The distinction being that the people care about being prepared for the rain, but we don't know that it's necessarily bad to be prepared when it's not raining; better to be safe than sorry).
(2) On most occasions when the TV meteorologist forecast rain for the next day, he was right.
(3) Same cannot be said for competitors w/r/t (2) (I didn't feel confident about this under timed conditions, but ultimately concluded we could interpret this as: on most occasions when the competitors forecast rain the next day, they were not right.)

(A) strengthens the argument by guaranteeing that the TV meteorologist's weather station predicted rain for rainy days more often than the competitors, supporting their claim of being useful and reliable with respect to predicting rain when it rained.

Another way to think about it: if the TV meteorologist was right "most" of the time in predicting rain when it rained, they could still have predicted fewer rainy days when it rained than his competitors (even if their competitors weren't right about whether it would rain most of the time).

For example, it rained 10 out of 30 days in a given month. The TV meteorologist predicted that it would rain only 3 days in that month and on all those 3 days it did in fact rain. Thus, clearly they were right on at least most occasions (predicted rain 3 times, and it rained on those 3 days). However, say that the competitors predicted that it would rain 10 days that month and were right for 4 out of the 20 days (6 times when they said it would rain, it didn't). In this case, the competitors predicted more times that it rained when it actually did even if they weren't right "most" of the time (4/10).

(A) allows us to make the numbers look more like the following:

In a given month it rained 15 days. Let's say that the TV meteorologist predicted that it would rain 8 days and he was right that it did rain for 5 of those days ("most" - 5/8). However, we know that the competitors predicted rain less frequently (let's say 7) and were not right for "most" of it. Best case scenario, they would have been right that it rain 3/7 times.

[redcobra21]

Thanks for the great responses so far. I get where everyone is coming from, but doesn't that mean that (A) actually WEAKENS the argument?

The metereologist is saying that his forecasts are the most reliable, and the reason why is because on most occassions where they have forecast rain, they have been right. However, if you apply (A) to the stimulus and now know that the meterologist predicts rain more often than other newscasts, doesn't that mean that the meterologist is actually NOT reliable because he is perhaps always predicting rain and would therefore be correct in predicting rain when there is rain?

For example, if there were 100 days and only 50 of them had rain, the meterologist could have predicted 100 days of rain while the most popular news station could have predicted only 40. The meterologist would have correctly all 50 days of rain. However, he would NOT be the most reliable because he would have also predicted rain when there was not rain. He is simply correct more often about rain because he predicts rain more often than everyone else, but that does NOT mean that he is the most reliable, which would weaken the conclusion.

What do you guys think? Am I missing something here?

Thanks!!

[caitlinfitz10]

redcobra, my thinking was exactly the same as yours, however on looking at it again if the meterologist predicted 100 days of rain, but it only rained 50 then the premise that "it did rain on most of the days that the meteorologist predicted rain" no longer holds because it only rained on 1/2 of the days he/she predicted rain. Then I thought: let's say he/she said it would rain 70 days but it only rained 50 and the competitors said it would rain 50 days. Now the competitors have better accuracy and the m's station predicted rain more often. However, then the premise that it did not actually rain on most of the days the competitors predicted rain no longer holds. ("most of the occasions when we forecast rain for the next day, we have been right, the same cannot be said for our competitors"). So the only situation left is the one described by the other poster when it STRENGTHENS the argument. I can't imagine how I could get here in just 2 minutes though. I think what the first poster said makes the most sense as a take-away strategy - eliminate based on syntax and you're left with A so don't overthink it.

[T.J.]

I knocked off (E) pretty quick but I want to make sure my thinking is correct.

Since the core of this argument is about the rainy days ("the most important question for viewers in this area"), why should I care about the days that do not rain? Moreover, the argument compares its own forecast with other competitors' on the rainy days. Thus, I didn't bother to figure out what E means, and moved on to the next question.

[yisiyu123]

I think there is a very simple way to interpret this question

First we have to figure out what makes a weather forecast useful and reliable? I think everyone will agree that a weather forecast that predicts as many rainy days correctly as possible will be useful and reliable.

So let us make the number of times that TV meteorologist's station correct to be "A", and the total number of forecasts to be "X". The same with the most popular news station: correct: B total:Y

The meteorologist said A>1/2X and their competitors can not guarantee the most-of-the-time thing, which can be interpreted into B<1/2Y

If A is true, that is X>Y, then 1/2X>1/2Y.
Combine these three things together we have: A>1/2X>1/2Y>B, therefore A>B
That's exactly what we want

I ddint think like that when I was doing this question. I probably can say "the number of correct days is smaller than half of the TV's total number of forecasts..." I just think it's difficult to read, so I choose ABXY to make it easier.

Hope it will help!

[Mab6q]

I don't think E is out of scope. The conclusion is about reliability, and the meteorologist uses only one condition, predicting rain, to makes the claim. However what about other days when it does not rain. I choose E because I thought it was hitting on that assumption; that the station isn't simply making the rain forecast whenever it is most likely to rain, but it also forecast other days. And while the argument is assuming that, that's NOT what E is saying . E is simply too ambiguous to make that kind of assumption, whereas A is the safe choice.

[stacksdoe]

Hey folks focusing on eliminating answer choice C.
I also went with it, but open review, it's easy to see why C is incorrect. Someone claimed its out of scope, out of scope or irrelevant: (C) tells us why the other stations are popular, but what doesn't that have to do with usefulness and reliability? Which is what our main conclusion is about, nothing, and thus it's irrelevant to the argument. Looking back, I can even believe I actually went with this answer choice

[zdlsat]

Lemme put my thoughts here.
It seems that we are discussion answer A, C, and E.

When I did this question in a PT, I thought none of them is right.

Here are some very important details that we need to keep in mind:
1) Our station's weather FORECASTS are more useful and reliable that those of other.
so tv meteorologist is comparing weather forecast. We don't care about other shows.
For Answer C, it says other station is popular bc of its news reports. I thinks it's out of scoop. It has no effect on conclusion, the usefulness and reliability of weather forecast.


2) and on most of the occasions when we have forecast rain for the next day, we have been right. The same cannot be said for either of our competitors.

we can put this in this way,

for our station:
forecast rain for next day ------> most are right.
for other station:
forecast rain for next day ------> "most are right" cannot be said right for either of our competitors =
most are not right


OK. we already have reliability. Wait, we don't know anything about our station's usefulness!


3) most important question is whether rain.
Aha, here it is. In order to be useful, weather forecast need to focus on rain forecast, since ppl care about rain most.
There are several ways to strengthen its usefulness. For example, it can forecast rain only (other stations forecast bunch of non-relevant information), it can report more often(like every hour), or it can deliver the message in a efficient way (like cellphone app push notification), or people can watch our station everywhere whenever they want to know the weather (like cellphone app live stream).

Let's check answers.
A) aha, exactly like what we pre-phrased. Forecast rain more often than others. It covers every details mentioned above.
B) Out of scoop. Who cares less popular station. We don't even compared with them.
C) Out of scoop. Explained before.
D) no more than three days advance? How about other stations? Are we more useful?
E) Out of scoop. forecast not rain? Who cares. Ppl in this area only cares about rain. It might strengthen reliability, but it doesn't say whether correct or not, when our station forecast not rain.

[pewals13]

Core:

Premise: Most important question for our viewers is whether it will rain

Premise: On most of the occasions when we have forecast rain for the next day we have been right.

Premise: The same cannot be said for our competitors.

Conclusion: Our weather forecasts are more useful and reliable than those of the most popular news station in the area.

The obvious flaw here is that maybe their storm team is cooking the books. Imagine a basketball team that has a great record against poor teams ("we won 20 games this year, but the same cannot be said for our opponent"). Is the 20 win team really better? Maybe the news channel only predicts rain when there's a 90% chance for it to occur the next day. Remember that there are lies, darn lies, and statistics.

Answers:

(A) This helps rule out the notion that the boastful news station was inflating its accuracy rate by only predicting rain in the most obvious circumstances.

(B) Out of Scope.

(C) Out of Scope.

(D) Out of Scope.

(E) Not sure what this answer choice is suggesting, perhaps that the overall accuracy between the boastful station and the others were similar? (Because more than half of the time there is at least one competitor that makes the same forecast for no rain) That would seemingly weaken.

[AlizaS645]

I don't understand why A is correct because all it says is that they are accurate on most of the times they predict rain which can't be said for their competitors in the area.

But we're not necessarily talking about their competitors, the conclusion drawn references the most popular news station in the area. We have no reason to assume that is a competitor - maybe this station only overlaps in talking about rain but that is not even a focus for the station and they are wildly different and not considered competitors. Without the statement then that they are more accurate, answer choice A doesn't help us at all because for all we know the most popular news station is right 100% of the time, but they are not considered a competitor.

[smiller]

Good question, AlizaS645. The kind of language shift that you're pointing out—the difference between "the most popular news station in the area" and "our competitors"—is important to notice on the LSAT. But in this case, it is very reasonable to assume that the most popular news station in the area and the TV meteorologist's station are competitors. We have to make some completely unsupported assumptions in order to conclude that two TV stations in the same area are definitely not competitors. It would be like assuming that two fast-food restaurants on the same street are in no way competitors.

It's also worth remembering that there can be multiple gaps in an argument and the correct answer to a Strengthen question only needs to address one gap. It might not even address what seems to be the most important gap. The question is just asking for an answer that will, in some way, make the argument more likely to be valid. Choice (A) does this by addressing the potential issue of the meteorologists' station playing it safe by only forecasting rain when it's highly likely. This does help the argument.

I hope this helps!

[GolddiggerF208]

This one is really tough. I could only get A by following:

Suppose there are 10 days and the station predicts 7 days are raining:

(1) if there are actually 8 rainy days, A shows this station does a better job than others.

(2) if there are actually 6 rainy days, A leaves the possibility that this station predicts fewer days that are not rainy, which means they are probably not as reliable as the competitors.

Despite the above, only A strengthens the stimulus to some extent due to (1). No other options help in this regard.