LSAT (Law School Admission Test)Logical ReasoningEasy
City Council Member: Our new initiative to provide free public Wi-Fi in all downtown areas has been a resounding success. Since its implementation six months ago, the number of new businesses opening in the downtown core has increased by 15%, which is a clear indication that the Wi-Fi has stimulated local economic growth.
- AIt assumes that the increase in new businesses is solely attributable to the free public Wi-Fi.
- BIt does not provide data on the number of businesses that closed during the same period.
- CIt fails to consider whether the new businesses are actually utilizing the public Wi-Fi.
- DIt ignores the possibility that the increase in businesses would have occurred even without the Wi-Fi initiative.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. It ignores the possibility that the increase in businesses would have occurred even without the Wi-Fi initiative.
The council member attributes the increase in new businesses solely to the Wi-Fi initiative. However, there could be many other factors contributing to business growth, such as other city initiatives, economic trends, or demographic changes. The argument fails to consider these alternative causes, making the causal link unwarranted.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This is very close to D, but D is more encompassing. The argument does assume the Wi-Fi is a cause, but the core flaw is ignoring *other* potential causes, not necessarily that it assumes it's the *sole* cause. If it's one of many causes, the argument still needs to account for those others to establish the Wi-Fi's impact.
- B. While knowing closures would provide a fuller picture of net growth, its absence doesn't invalidate the logical flaw of attributing *any* observed growth solely to one factor.
- C. The argument is about stimulating economic growth, not direct Wi-Fi usage by businesses. Even if businesses don't use it, customers might, or its presence might improve the overall downtown appeal.
Alternative Cause
A flaw in reasoning where an arguer attributes an effect to a specific cause, while ignoring other plausible factors that could also have caused or contributed to the effect.
- Common in correlation-causation arguments.
- Fails to eliminate other possible explanations.
- Weakens the causal link between the proposed cause and effect.
Memory trick: When cause and effect are claimed, always ask 'What else might be blamed?'