Q6 - Recent unexpectedly heavy rainfalls

[b91302310]

Could anyone explain what is the problem with (C)?

Thanks.

[bbirdwell]

(C) is the correct answer.

[weiyichen1986]

i am wondering why is B wrong? i think it weakens the argument by saying that some part of the city needs water supply.....

[KakaJaja]

I have the same question with B.

But I think that as the question asks which one MOST undermines the predication, C is actually better than B as B only states about a small part of the city, well the condition of C can affect all.

I thought C was wrong because I did't see any relevance between C and the prediction. Now I figure that even if the water is in reservoirs and streams, it still need to be pumped by the water company before customers can use it, right? Sorry I know this question may be stupid, but I really don't know since I have no life experience about it....

[nbayar1212]

The stimulus basically says that since its rained a lot, the city won't have to save water for this summer. We want to weaken the conclusion and give a reason why we might have to still save water despite the increase rainfall.

A gives is a history of water rationing in the city - its irrelevant
B says "a small part" - how does that affect the conclusion (without bringing in new info i.e. assuming its small but critical)? we just don't know.
C is correct! It says the company might not be able to get access to the extra water so residents will likely still have to conserve the water they do have access to so they have more left for the summer
D says that the forecasts indicate the summer will be cooler than usual - first off, predictions about the future are not great ways to weaken as a bunch of questions remain; how accurate is the forecast?how hot are the summers usually? What temperature would be sufficient to to decide to not ration? Secondly, this probably strengthens because it says its colder this summer than summers usually are which would probably make drouths less likely and increase the chance of rainfall.
E. Says the city gets less rainfall in the summer - it doesn't weaken and doesn't tell us much of anything except that the city's rainfall pattern is pretty normal.

[bbirdwell]

Great reasoning -- Thanks for contributing!

Minor note for (E): a lack of rain in the summer isn't necessarily "normal" Summer might be the rainy season!

[WaltGrace1983]

I have the same question with B.

But I think that as the question asks which one MOST undermines the predication, C is actually better than B as B only states about a small part of the city, well the condition of C can affect all.

I thought C was wrong because I did't see any relevance between C and the prediction. Now I figure that even if the water is in reservoirs and streams, it still need to be pumped by the water company before customers can use it, right? Sorry I know this question may be stupid, but I really don't know since I have no life experience about it....

(B), as it is, is actually completely irrelevant to the argument. It has some great words that I was thinking about before going into the answer choices but when you actually think about what (B) means one could see that it just is "meh."

Reservoirs and streams are filled
→
Water rationing will not be necessary this summer

There are some pretty cookie-cutter assumptions that this argument is making: (1) it is assuming that the reservoirs/streams are prominent sources of water. Maybe this metropolitan area gets its water through other means and so what is going on with the reservoirs and streams is not particularly relevant. (2) it is assuming that what is going on now is somehow indicative of what is going to happen in the future - we take for granted that this argument is being made in the spring or some earlier season. What if the temperatures are above 100 degrees every day until the summer and so all the water is evaporated by the summer? (3) it assumes that people aren't going to use up all this water before the summer happens. I could go on and on because there is a lot of stuff to play with here despite being a short argument.

(A) This could weaken if we make additional assumptions that are outlined above. However, we obviously shouldn't do that and so I am doubtful. I didn't eliminate this one right away because it still can weaken the argument but I am of course looking for something better because this doesn't do that much for me.

(B) This answer choice says that a small part of the water supply comes from this one source. But we want to know how this is relevant to the reservoirs and streams! This is the equivalent to saying "some customers get their water from cups in their front yard." All (B) is saying is that there is another source of water BUT this other source is SMALL anyway. Therefore, this is very inconsequential. If anything, (B) might strengthen a tiny bit by implying that maybe these reservoirs and streams are fairly prominent sources of water.

(C) This looks good! This is saying that there is an increased demand and there is population growth. Above all though, we find out that the water capacity has "not kept up" with these things! So (C) is discussing something happening now shows how there has been a water shortcoming, giving us reason to believe that we still might have to ration it. This looks much better than (A) so I cross that out.

(D) This might strengthen! Lower temperatures means less chance of evaporation! However, we still don't know what effect temp has so we can dross (D) out for that reason too.

(E) This does weaken only a bit but it is just much too weak and we would STILL have to make more assumptions in order to make this truly weaken (that the difference in precipitation is not negligible, that the precipitation water is captured, etc.)

Overall, I think this is one of those cases in which you just have to realize that (A) and (E) require much more assuming than (C) does. (C) is basically ready-made and we like that on strengthen/weaken questions!

[alexroark5]

Answer choices A and E are both time-shift flaws that occur frequently on the LSAT.

Just bc something has happened in the past doesn't mean it will continue to happen in the future.

Just bc something is happening now, doesn't mean it will continue to happen in the future.

Watch out for this common flaw

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Premise: Heavy rainfalls in the metropolitan have filled reservoirs and streams.

Gap: The water can be used and or is not polluted/ The water will not be used up by the time summer rolls around.

Conclusion: Water rationing will not be necessary this summer.

(A) When the water rationing system was introduced is not relevant, get rid of this.
(B) This is completely irrelevant. First of all, we're not told as to whether or not the rain would have impeded the ability of these guys to extract the water from underground. Even if we conceded that fact, this is only small portion of their drinking water, so presumably the amount of water they would be denied by not being able to get the underground water is negligible and may be in fact be offset fact made up by all the water provided by the rain. Just a bad answer choice.
(C) Hmm, if there has been a continuous increase in population growth, as exhibited by the fact that the water company can't satisfy demand, maybe by the time summer rolls around, there won’ t be enough for everyone, thus weakening the author's contention that water rationing will not be necessary, keep for now.
(D) Temperature? Completely irrelevant.
(E) This discusses water in relative terms. Most summers the metropolitan areas receive less water than they do during other parts of the year. This answer choice requires the assumption that the total amount of rain in the summer despite usually being less in relative terms, is not sufficient to satisfy the demand of those living in metropolitan areas. Even if this were true, perhaps the amount of water provided by the rain will offset the fact that they will get less rain in the summer.