PrepTest 106

[lcid:3520] Prep Test 106 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Essayist: The way science Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

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

Must Be True Questions

Stimulus Summary

How science is conducted can change, but it should be balanced with the cost. (Three examples.) The examples show massive changes that would cost a lot!

Answer Anticipation

Triple pivot! There are a lot of shifts in this stimulus, so let’s walk through it, going through our internal narrative as we consider the argument.
It starts by stating that something is possible - science can be changed. That could be a conclusion, but the argument then immediately pivots away - those changes need to be warranted based on the cost. This has three elements that make it seem like a conclusion. First, it’s an opinion on the opening line. Second, it makes a recommendation - we need to do something - and recommendations tend to be conclusions. Third, it talks about a cost/benefit analysis, and those tend to show up in conclusions.
After this statement, the argument goes into an example of something about scientific research that could be changed (animal testing). And then another example (recombinant DNA)... and another (fraud police, among others). In the last pivot, it then says that these changes would each be costly and change the character of science.
The pivot here also has elements of a conclusion - it generalizes from several examples, and it is an opinion on certain changes. So we should see if this statement supports the second one, or vice versa.
Looking at both of them, the examples being costly while changing the character of science supports the view that the costs and benefits need to be balanced before a change should be considered. As such, the final statement is an intermediate conclusion, with the main point being that second statement. Let’s find an answer stating that changes to the way science is conducted must be weighed against their cost.

Answer choices

  1. A
    We should not make Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The Essayist argues that the changes should be weighed against the costs, not that they shouldn’t happen.
  2. B
    If we regulate science Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    First, it’s unclear if the changes noted would involve regulating science more closely - maybe the regulations are equally close, just different. But ignoring that for a second (especially since “fraud police” does sound like close regulation), this statement is a part of the intermediate conclusion (it ignores cost), making it incorrect.
  3. C
    The regulation of science Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    This is the opening line, which the argument immediately pivots away from. It’s hard for an argument to pivot away from it’s main point!
  4. D
    The imposition of restrictions Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The intermediate conclusion states that several specific restrictions would be costly, but that’s not the same as saying that all restrictions are very costly. In fact, the argument thinks that the costs should be balanced against the changes, which suggests that she’s at least open to the idea that some aren’t too costly! Finally, this reflects the intermediate conclusion, not the main point.
  5. E
    We need to be Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This answer reflects the second sentence, which made a recommendation to proceed cautiously with changes to the regulation of science, backed up by the examples and generalization from those examples. While this answer doesn’t specifically speak to costs, it includes them when it talks about the impact of change.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion