PrepTest 111

[lcid:3542] Prep Test 111 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

People ought to take Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Errors in Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

Example - Some big results in chemistry were done by crazy alchemists
Conclusion - You should take a field of science’s origins into account when thinking of its value

Answer Anticipation

The argument’s conclusion is a bit noncommittal. It doesn’t say whether a scientific discipline is good or bad, or even whether the origins should determine your view. Instead, it just states that these “blemished” origins should be taken into account.
To back this up, it uses the example of chemistry. It originated out of alchemy, which was based in superstition and magic. That definitely calls the views of the alchemists into question!
However, there’s no indication that this calls the chemists into question. Maybe those alchemists, in mixing chemicals randomly and expecting magic, stumbled on to logical, science-based thinking surrounding chemicals. It’s possible that modern chemistry - though it developed out of alchemy - has nothing to do with the superstitious, magical thinking of those early practitioners.
Since the argument relies on that comparison, let’s find an answer that points out the argument fails to establish that the alchemists and chemists are similar in their beliefs or practices.

Answer choices

  1. A
    fails to establish that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The conclusion is limited to discussing disciplines with blemished origins, so this answer is out of scope.
  2. B
    fails to consider how Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    This answer highlights the argument’s failure to consider that chemists may rely on completely different methods/practices/theories than the alchemists, and thus the latter’s focus on superstition and magic doesn’t call the work of the chemists into question. In highlighting the unsupported comparison in the stimulus, this answer points out the error in reasoning.
  3. C
    uses an example to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    First, the argument’s example is meant to support the principle. Second, this answer doesn’t describe a flaw - using an example to contradict a principle is a valid way to undermine a principle.
  4. D
    does not prove that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The conclusion is about taking blemished origins into account when considering the scientific value of a discipline. That doesn’t require proving that “most” scientifically valueless disciplines have suspect origins. (At most, it would require showing that most disciplines with suspect origins don’t have value, but even that would overshoot the conclusion.)
  5. E
    uses the word "discipline" Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The word shows up twice in the conclusion, and in both cases, it’s used to mean a subset of science - e.g., chemistry.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion