Q6 - The number of tornadoes

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Explain Discrepancy (resolve discrepancy)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Fact 1: Number of annual tornadoes has tripled since 1953.
Fact 2: Climatic factors affecting tornado creation have not changed.

Answer Anticipation:
Given that "no climatic factors affecting tornado creation have changed" how is it that "there are three times as many tornadoes since 1953"?

We basically need something that has changed, since 1953, that is not related to climate, that can lead to more tornadoes.

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) We don't care about the state of knowledge. We need to know some actual factor that changed that explains the uptick in tornadoes.

(B) Great -- more numerous AND stronger in intensity. But we still don't know WHY!

(C) This is just more numerical data. We need a causal factor that explains the increase in tornadoes.

(D) This describes the EFFECTS of tornadoes. We're seeking a CAUSE for one.

(E) Yes! This isn't quite the cause we were expecting. Nothing is actually causing more tornadoes, but since 1953 civilians have helped authorities detect tornadoes, so that could explain why we now "RECORD" more tornadoes annually.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a classic LSAT way to re-imagine a statistic. You'll see arguments like, "Over the past twenty years, reported cases of arson have gone up considerably. Apparently arson is a growing problem." And LSAT will weaken that sort of argument by showing that sometimes AWARENESS of a problem has increased, even though the incidence of the problem itself has not increased.

#officialexplanation

[ssfriend.88]

Firstly, number of tornadoes recorded has more than tripled since 1953.
Secondly, climatic factors affecting creation of tornadoes are unchanged.

Gap? Could something other than climatic factors affect tornadoes? Were all tornadoes actually recorded?

A - Hmm, factors were not well known in 1953? Can't really decide how that would help, doesn't really seem like it would matter since meteorologists knowing the factors wouldn't actually affect how many tornadoes are created. Eliminate.
B - Intensity is irrelevant. Eliminate.
C - The number over the last 5 years isn't important when we're talking about nearly 60 years. Eliminate.
D - Property damage is completely out of scope. Eliminate.
E - Nails it! If more people are detecting tornadoes, then the number RECORDED could have gone up without the average number actually going up. The climatic factors staying the seems reasonable then.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation ssfriend.88!

[krisk743]

I easily anticipated this a/c but still circled A because I didn't like "Many more" citizens....

If 1 more person had helped the authorities would it really be able to have tripled since '53?

I mean I know A is just a horrible answer too but should I have chosen E only because there was nothing better? Guess I've gotten used to a/c's being stronger than "many" and "sometimes".

[krisk743]

I easily anticipated this a/c but still circled A because I didn't like "Many more" citizens....

If 1 more person had helped the authorities would it really be able to have tripled since '53?

I mean I know A is just a horrible answer too but should I have chosen E only because there was nothing better? Guess I've gotten used to a/c's being stronger than "many" and "sometimes".

I was thinking under the same circumstances. Anticipated it but...."many more" to TRIPLE?? If the factors weren't well known like A describes, then maybe they are NOW and THATS WHY they're recording more


Thanks admins for responding to this question