lsat-6-3-16(翻帖子翻到深夜也没结果，只有发帖求助。)

16.   An ancient Pavonian text describes how an army of one million enemies of Pavonia stopped to drink at a certain lake and drank the lake dry. Recently, archaeologists discovered that water-based life was suddenly absent just after the event was alleged by the text to have occurred. On the basis of reading the text and an account of the archaeological evidence, some students concluded that the events described really took place.

When one of the following is a questionable technique used by the students to reach their conclusion?

(A) making a generalization about historical events on the basis of a single instance of that type of event

(B) ignoring available, potentially useful counterevidence

(C) rejecting a hypothesis because it is seemingly self-contradictory

(D) considering people and locations whose existence cannot be substantiated by modern historians（E）

(E) taking evidence that a text has correctly described an effect to show that the text has correctly described the cause

偶总觉得e项与学生的结论没有直接关系，学生最后推出“此事当真发生过”，e说正确描述了影响的文段便能作为正确表现原因的理由。是不是抽象力点呐，晚上脑子转不过来了。。。

好像有点明白了……

原来以为这个传说也是学生的理由之一，看了lawyer大侠的解释，大概明白是不是不能用这个传说本身去证明传说的正确性呢？所以说实际上学生就只用了考古的那个证据（effect）来证明传说的正确性？

This question asks you to find the logical flaw of the argument. Answer E is the correct one. Two events are described in the stimulus. Even though those two events happened chronically, it doesn’t mean they have a cause and effect relationship.