Logical reasoning PrepTest 139 · Section 4 · Question 17

Incorrect. The conclusion in the stimulus is about whether the phenomenon should be considered support for the theory, not whether Einstein discovered it (in fact, we know he didn't), so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The stimulus notes that Einstein likely did have the phenomenon in mind when developing his theory, so this principle doesn't apply.

Incorrect. The argument in the stimulus is over whether something can count as evidence, not whether the theory itself is well supported.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Background - Einstein's theory is the best at describing Mercury's perihelion.
Opposing view - This supports Einstein's theory
Author - The phenomenon was known when Einstein was working on his theory so he probably adjusted to account for it, so it doesn't count as support for the theory.

Answer Anticipation:
Don't get focused on the science of the argument here! If we can follow the structure and identify the author's portion of this argument, we should be able to answer it without getting too in the weeds.

Strengthen (Principle) questions generally draw a judgment in the conclusion based on details in the premises that don't fully justify it, and the correct answer will connect the details to the judgment.

Here, the judgment in the conclusion is that aligning with an observed phenomenon shouldn't count as evidence for Einstein's theory. Why not? Because that phenomenon was already known when Einstein developed his theory, and thus he probably adjusted the theory to account for what was already known. Let's find an answer connecting those ideas:

If a phenomenon that a theory accounts for was known when the theory was developed, it doesn't count as support for that theory.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the details in the premises and the judgment in the conclusion. Einstein "quite probably" adjusted his theory of general relativity to account for the known perihelion advance of Mercury. This answer justifies the conclusion that the theory matching the reality, therefore, can't be considered support for the theory, as the conclusion states.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions will try to distract you with complex subject matter and big words. Don't let it work! Find the judgment in the conclusion and identify the relevant premises relied on by the author to reach it. Then, find the answer that connects them.

Incorrect. The first half of this answer is spot on, but the second half is off. The conclusion is that the theory matching reality doesn't provide support for the theory, not that the theory can't be said to have predicted the phenomenon.