PT18.S2.Q07 - scientists are sometimes said to

SherryS1

Hi All,

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-07/
I was between B and C for this question and was hoping folks could weigh in on why C was wrong. I did listen to JY's explanation but still have some hesitations for getting rid of C. Here's the overview:

Context: Scientists are said to assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case

Conclusion: The characterization (above) of scientists is false.

Premise: In evaluating a question of whether an unresearched additive is safe, scientists would say the following based on the characterization:
1. The additive is unsafe because it has not been proven to be safe
2. The additive is safe because it has not been proven to be unsafe.

Premise 2 : No scientist can assume without contradiction that a given substance is both safe and unsafe.

My Pre-phrase: Argument shows that taking a statement to be true results in a contradiction, so the statement cannot be true.

Answer Choice B: A statement is argued to be false by showing that taking it to be true leads to implausible consequences.
My Thoughts: I circled this upon first reading it but wasn't crazy about the word implausible, which I read as unlikely or not probable. If they would have given me something more like illogical, I would never have read on.

Answer Choice C: A statement is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true.
My Thoughts: I read this as...a statement (ie the context) is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement (Premise 2) that is taken to be true. JY's explanation stated that there was no second statement, which seemed to me to exist. I can throw it out for not being a "direct" contradiction since the contradiction is in the application...

Would love any feedback on C!

Sami

@SherryS1 said:
I read this as...a statement (ie the context) is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement (Premise 2) that is taken to be true.

The first part of answer choice "C" says the Statement (which refers to what you labeled as "context" in conclusion), is shown to be false.

The first part of answer choice "C" is so far so good. What I disagree with in this answer choice is the 2nd statement and the method or reasoning this answer choice is actually talking about versus what's happening in the stimulus.

So what's actually happening in the stimulus (as you also pre-phrased) the statement in the stimulus is shown to be false because the major premise says it (the statement) leads to a contradiction.
What answer choice "C" is saying is that this statement is shown to be false because it ("it is the referential phrasing for your context in conclusion") directly contradicts a second statement. Note its not saying that the statement itself leads to contradiction (which is what the stimulus is saying) but that the statement leads to a contradiction with another statement. Even if we go with your line of reasoning about what the 2nd statement might be in reference to, that is still not the method of reasoning used in the stimulus. The Method of reasoning is that the statement of scientist leads to a contradiction therefore its false, not because the statement contradicts with another statement.

I hope this helped

SherryS1

@Sami Thank you! Yes that makes sense. I think I went too far into that one. It's just not the structure no matter how the parts are assigned