Sea-level rise is one of the most closely watched indicators of climate change—and one of the most heavily modeled. But recent claims suggest that some of those projections may be flawed because earlier models relied on incomplete assumptions about the Earth’s gravity and shape, known as geoid models.

In this episode of LSAT Logic Applied, Andrew Leahey examines the reasoning behind that claim. If earlier models had methodological flaws, does that necessarily mean current sea-level projections are wrong? Or does that argument rely on hidden assumptions about how scientific models evolve over time?

Using LSAT logical reasoning tools, this episode explores common flaws involving methodology critiques, overgeneralization, and the gap between identifying a problem and proving a conclusion. Along the way, it highlights a key analytical question: when does a flaw in a model actually undermine the broader claim—and when does it not?

The goal isn’t to resolve the science of sea-level rise. Instead, it’s to better understand how arguments about scientific uncertainty are constructed, and how careful reasoning can clarify what the evidence truly supports.

Whether you’re interested in climate science or just want to sharpen your analytical skills, this episode breaks down a real-world claim using the same logic tested on the LSAT.