VIPLSATCracking LSAT makes you a VIP.

Logical Reasoning · Flaw

PrepTest 131 · Section 2 · Question 4

Phase 1 (your first ~400 questions): read the guidance, then answer. No clock.

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type
Flaw
The one idea it tests
Two things showing up together does not prove one caused the other.
The basic logic
The argument finds that two things happened together and concludes one caused the other. That is the Rooster flaw: the rooster crows and the sun rises, but the rooster did not raise the sun. Look for the answer that names correlation treated as cause.
Tiny words that decide it
  • “coincided”
  • “so”
  • “cause”

Playground logic

Marcus sees that the week the class hamster ran on its wheel the most was also the rainiest week, and his top bun is that the running made the rain. His patty is only that the two happened together. That is the Rooster.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Rainmaker Hamster

Marcus kept a chart of how many hours Peanut, the class hamster, spent on his wheel. Ms. Rivera had the class chart the weather too. Marcus compared the two charts and gasped. 'The week Peanut ran the most was the rainiest week of the whole month!' He slammed his notebook shut. 'It is clear. Peanut's running caused the rain.' Owen laughed so hard milk almost came out of his nose. Priya calmly finished her juice box. 'Marcus, two things happened in the same week. That is all your chart shows.' 'But they matched perfectly!' 'So does the rooster crowing and the sun coming up,' said Priya. 'Maybe the rain kept us inside, so we woke Peanut up more. Or maybe it is a coincidence.' Marcus looked at Peanut. Peanut kept running.

Step 3 · Try the model question

Marcus: My charts show that the week our hamster ran the most on his wheel was also the rainiest week of the month. So it is clear that the hamster's running caused the rain that week.

Marcus's reasoning is most open to which one of the following criticisms?

Choices

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Bell Tower Trial

A town sued the bell ringer for causing the summer heat wave. The prosecutor waved a chart. 'Your Honor, in the summer he rang the bell twice as often, and that same summer was the hottest in years. Clearly the ringing heated the town!' Mr. Whitfield rose, adjusting his suspenders. 'Your Honor, two things happened in the same season. That is all. Did the ringing cause the heat? Did the heat bring more tourists, who asked for more ringing? Or is it plain chance?' The judge put down her pen. 'Counselor, a match on a calendar is not a confession.' Case dismissed. The bell rang, very politely.

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 131, Section 2, Question 4 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Find the premise: two things happened together, or in the same period. Find the conclusion: one caused the other. That gap is the Rooster. Look for the answer saying the argument moves from an association to a cause. Skip answers about harm, about generalizing to all times, or about the reliability of data, unless the argument actually leans on those. Here the leap is from 'together' to 'caused.'