I was between B C and D in this question and chose B because i thought it would strengthen the idea that social problems caused the decline. If the dry spell caused the social problems then reinforcing the notion that the social problems did in face cause the decline seemed to be a good strengthener.
I decided against D for the same reasons i used to pick B... because social conditions were deteriorating (i.e. the roads were worsening there was sickness being passed around like a plague) that would account for the decline and not a drought or social problems.
Finally, I didnt choose C because of the word "sudden declines" i the passage it says cooling caused "extended droughts" and that these droughts caused the social upheaval. inherent in this is the idea of time, all the these things eventually added up to the toppling of the kingdom BUT it did not happen overnight. Can someone please help clear this up?
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- jimmy902o
-
Thanks Received: 4
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 90
- Joined: August 06th, 2011
-
- timmydoeslsat
-
Thanks Received: 887
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1136
- Joined: June 20th, 2011
- This post thanked 3 times.
- Most Thanked
- First Responder
Re: Q24 - New evidence suggests
Be careful on this one! You want to strengthen the idea that it was the environment that caused the collapse, not the social upheaval.
A) We would want it to be true that most civs collapsed due to environmental issues than internal strife. This would help us slightly in terms of it being a numbers game. This actually weakens our argument.
B) Would help strengthen a claim towards social upheaval causing the collapse. This answer choice weakens the conclusion of it being the case that the environmental issues caused the collapse.
C) This is really giving us a stronger correlation than the one in the premises. We initially knew that these environmental issues were occurring at the same time as the collapse, as were the social issues, but now we know that other isolated places declined during the same time. Our correlation has grown even stronger with more cases.
D) Classic premise booster that does nothing to help us with anything. This is just stating more evidence of something we already know.
E) Would also suggest, as B does, that a social upheavel caused the collapse.
A) We would want it to be true that most civs collapsed due to environmental issues than internal strife. This would help us slightly in terms of it being a numbers game. This actually weakens our argument.
B) Would help strengthen a claim towards social upheaval causing the collapse. This answer choice weakens the conclusion of it being the case that the environmental issues caused the collapse.
C) This is really giving us a stronger correlation than the one in the premises. We initially knew that these environmental issues were occurring at the same time as the collapse, as were the social issues, but now we know that other isolated places declined during the same time. Our correlation has grown even stronger with more cases.
D) Classic premise booster that does nothing to help us with anything. This is just stating more evidence of something we already know.
E) Would also suggest, as B does, that a social upheavel caused the collapse.
2 posts Page 1 of 1