Hi there! I am currently scheduled to take the August LSAT flex (it is now spread out over a week) and signed up for one on September 2nd. I know that typically you have until the day before the LSAT to drop out, but since this one was supposed to be on August 29th, I was wondering if anyone knew if I had to drop by the 28th or if I could drop on September 1st. Thank you!
For Q 23, I chose A and I was initially going to post a long essay as to why I thought it was right, but I then had a conversation with a friend and now think I see the reasoning why this is wrong, but in case anyone else is having this same problem, here is what my initial post was going to be and below it is my proposed solution. Hope this helps, and would love for others to weigh in!
I understand why D is something that the author definitely thinks Popper's theory does, but it seems that the phrase "hyperbolic application" more so directly refers to those majority of the cases where scientists use auxiliary theories. The author doesn't think that in the swan example, Popper's conclusion is too radical. If the only theory we are testing is if all swans are white, then finding a black swan would be disproof, thus Popper's conclusion is not too radical for these assumptions. He later says that the problem is that "a scientific theory rarely entails predictions on its own", I take this to mean that they rarely are like the swan example where the only thing you are testing is the prediction itself and one does not require other assumptions. JY's answer indicates that A is wrong because the phrase directly after the comma in the sentence indicates what hyperbolic application means and it does not refer to applying it to too many cases, however one could also think that this phrase was describing what "logical asymmetry" is (in fact, it happens to be where we learn what it is). I guess I am having trouble seeing where the hyperbolic application interpretation is not just applying it to cases where it does not apply. The author clearly states that the logical asymmetry is what it being applied hyperbolically and then just a few sentences later explains this position by noting that Popper's theory of logical asymmetry does not capture the situation scientists face because the majority of cases use the aux assumptions and rarely entail predictions on their own (like the swan theory). This just seems like pretty conclusive evidence to me that hyperbolic application meant applying to cases in which it should not. If it were not, why would we even need to discuss the distinction between theories which do and do not have aux premises. The author's critique is that Popper's theory fails when we assume other premises since the negative evidence could mean that one of those premises is wrong and not the theory one is trying to prove (thus negative evidence is rarely conclusive either). Also, if you just take the term out of context, i'm sure most people would think that it meant applying to cases where it should not. Additionally, for D to be correct, the author would have to think that from the notion of logical asymmetry, Popper drew the conclusion that "positive evidence has no value.." and the best way to describe that process of drawing a conclusion which was too strong was to say he gives it "hyperbolic application'. Does that not just sound very strange? I guess in a generous reading you could say that he applied the notion to hyperbolically in his reasoning and thus drew a conclusion too strong, but I feel like the former idea of hyperbolic application just meaning applied to too many cases is much more solid and has evidence to support it.
Solution: So logical asymmetry is not just Popper's theory of positive evidence being worthless and negative evidence being tantamount to disproof, it is just the weight we afford to each generally. At the end, the author even concluded that there is still a kind of logical asymmetry where positive evidence is never conclusive and negative evidence rarely is. This also helps assuage my concerns with the linguistic stylization of the word "application" since he is applying a general notion (the idea that there is this asymmetry) to form a conclusion hyperbolically, meaning he is taking the notion itself to be more extreme than it actually is and this creates a too radical conclusion. Using the word application in this way makes much more sense to me. Additionally, in distinguishing cases which entail and do not entail auxiliary assumptions, upon further review it looks like the main reason to highlight this was to emphasis that what Popper takes to the the necessary conditions for scientific research is so far off from what the vast majority of cases requires, it is almost not worth considering at all. So it is not a comment on cases where his interpretation of logical asymmetry will work and will not, it is showing that his belief in what scientific research is is wrong, which is supported by the fact that rarely COULD his interpretation even work, so it certainly is not a prerequisite. Hope this helps! I've officially thought about Karl Popper approx 15 times more than I ever thought i'd need to.
For section 2 Q2, I chose B, because I took the word prevent to be used theoretically (Ex. "what does the third amendment do?... it prevents the quartering of soldiers without consent"), and JY's response for why it is incorrect only addresses the literal application of the word (that those obligations physically prevent someone from representing a client they believe to be guilty). However, taken theoretically as well, the answer is still incorrect (incase there is anyone else out there that made the same mistake as I did) :). The author is pretty clear that the two obligations taken together do actually require that one (if they are to adhere to those rules) not "undertake to demonstrate their innocence". While this sounds very similar to B when it says "prevents from representing", it is not the same. As the passage notes, one could actually represent someone they know to be guilty and instead of argue against that guilt, admit the guilt and try to assert that there were mitigating factors, etc. The rules only require that you not make any knowingly false assertions. This is also why E is correct. The rules, according to the author, do not prohibit the representation of someone known to be guilty, just because there is another obligation to the court, since there are many other ways that one can be represented which are not just espousing innocence, thus there is no conflict of interest.