LSAT 145 – Section 4 – Question 02

LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 02

December 2015

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:36

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT145 S4 Q02
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Value Judgment +ValJudg
Analogy +An
A
0%
141
B
0%
155
C
97%
164
D
1%
154
E
1%
152
127
135
143
 +Easier 148.528 +SubsectionMedium

Live Commentary

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Albert: Swenson’s popular book, which argues that sun exposure does not harm skin cells, is a model of poor scholarship. Nonetheless, it is valuable because it has stimulated new research on sun exposure.

Yvonne: You’re kidding me! You might as well say that a virus is valuable because it stimulates epidemiologists.

Speaker 1 Summary
Albert claims that Swenson’s book is valuable, despite its major scientific flaws. Why could that be? Because the problems with the book have led to new, useful research about sun exposure.

Speaker 2 Summary
Yvonne thinks that that stimulating new research is not enough to make Swenson’s book valuable (although this conclusion is implied, not explicit). To support this point, Yvonne uses an analogy: it would be ridiculous to say that a virus is valuable because it leads to new epidemiology research. Swenson’s book is held to be analogous to the virus, so stimulating research alone doesn’t make it valuable.

Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. Albert and Yvonne disagree about whether stimulating new research makes Swenson’s book valuable.

A
sun exposure harms skin cells
Both speakers almost certainly agree with this claim. Albert calls Swenson’s claim that sun exposure doesn’t harm skin cells “a model of poor scholarship,” and Yvonne seems even more critical of Swenson than Albert does.
B
Swenson’s book is a model of poor scholarship
Albert agrees with this, and Yvonne almost certainly does as well. Yvonne compares Swenson’s book to a virus and argues against recognizing any value in it, which is very consistent with this statement.
C
Swenson’s book should be considered valuable
Albert agrees with this, and Yvonne disagrees. This is the point at issue. Albert’s conclusion is that the book has some value, if only due to stimulating other research. Yvonne argues that stimulating research doesn’t make the book valuable, leaving it with no value at all.
D
Swenson’s book has stimulated new research on sun exposure
Albert agrees with this, and Yvonne likely does as well. Albert states this as a fact, and Yvonne appears to take it for granted. The disagreement is just about whether stimulating new research makes the book valuable.
E
something that does not stimulate new research can have value
Neither speaker talks about this. The argument is about whether or not a book that has stimulated new research is valuable; the issue of what else is valuable and why is never brought up.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 145 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply