Logical reasoning PrepTest 111 · Section 4 · Question 18

Incorrect. The premise is about "most" scientists so that part of this answer lines up. However, the conclusion is about what the scientific community "largely" does. First, discussing the scientific community is different from discussing "each and every" scientist. Second, "largely" lines up more closely with "most" than with "each and every." Two reasons to eliminate this answer!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Scientists are self-interested, so most of them are driven by personal concerns, and thus the scientific community as a whole largely focuses on enhancing the status of that community.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has two features that suggest specific flaws.

First, it discusses motive, and the LSAT frequently tests our ability to distinguish between motive, action, and outcome. In this case, however, the argument's premises are about the motives behind the activities of most scientists, and the conclusion is about what motivates the scientific community. Premises about motive can lead to conclusions about motive, so there's no flaw here.

However, that leads us to the second feature—it discusses the scientific community. Language like that suggests a whole, so we should check to see if the premises supporting it are based on the members of that community. And they are—the premises are all about the motives of scientists. We can't assign the motives of the members of a group to the motives of the group as a whole—that's a part to whole jump. Let's find an answer pointing that out.

Answer Explanation:
The conclusion is about the scientific community as a whole, but it assigns a characteristic to that community that it has established as applying to the members of the community. That's a jump from the part to the whole. It's possible that, while each scientist is motivated by self-interest, the community takes on a different motivation in the aggregate—one interested in the pursuit of truth. As such, this answer correctly describes the error in reasoning in the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument brings up a community, society, team, or similar group, check to see if the other part of the argument is about individual members of those groups (individuals, citizens, team members, etc . . . ). If it does, then there's a very good chance that the argument features a Part vs. Whole flaw. Before heading to the answers, note whether it goes from a premise about the part to a conclusion about the whole, or the reverse—direction matters in this flaw!

Incorrect. The argument doesn't rely on a certain motive (personal career enhancement) being mutually exclusive with an outcome (advancement of the pursuit of truth). It relies on that outcome not being the motivating factor in the activities of most scientists.

Incorrect. The argument gives a specific example of self-interest (personal career enhancement) that lines up with the term's use in the first sentence, so this answer doesn't describe a flaw in the argument.

Incorrect. If we treat motive and cause to be semi-synonymous, this argument uses premises about motive/cause to draw a conclusion about motive/cause. As such, it doesn't have the shift that this answer discusses.