November 2019 LSAT Section 2 Question 13

Commentator: The worldwide oil crisis of 1973 was not due to any real shortage of oil, but was the result of collusio...

Raheel on June 24 at 08:37PM

Answer D

I had the right answer anticipation, but I incorrectly applied it to D. Why wouldn't the surplus before 1973 create enough reason to believe that if there was a surplus then, it had gone down since then?

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on June 25 at 01:05PM

I don't really see how there having been a surplus in the last weakens the argument. We are told that there was a shortage in 73, and the author tries to then elaborate on the cause of the shortage. To attack this we need to think about the causality, and whether there was a surplus, equilibrium or even a small shortage Prior to 73 has little to do with causality. May I ask what your anticipation was that led you to D?

Raheel on June 27 at 10:10PM

Shortage of oil, and surplus prior to 1983 led to an assumption that the amount of oil went down since then

Emil-Kunkin on June 29 at 03:08PM

Hm, I don't think that anticipation really gets at what is wrong with the argument. The argument is flawed because the authors only support for the claim the shortage was fake is the fact that parties benefitted from it. This isn't actual support, just speculation that fails to address whether the shortage was real at all.