PT47.S3.Q23 - Television network executive: Some scientists

Trusttheprocess

I know this is definitely a 5-star question. But a few things that I keep getting stuck on are the following:

• Does will encourage imply causation? My thought is no b/c if I encourage some1 to eat a chocolate cookie does not mean I caused them to do so.

• How do we grasp a phenomenon when doing LR stimuluses? Like I could not at all iron out the two phenomenons that the ACs were playing on in this question? How can I improve on that?

Thanks

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-23/

BinghamtonDave

I look at the "some scientists" argument (OPA) as a 3 link 2 bridge claim:
ghost hunting tv shows contributes to the concept of superstition which leads to a blocking of the public's scientific understanding. "Will encourage" here I am looking at as somewhat causal. I'm looking here at the "stimulate" definition:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encourage

The statements then switch from OPA to the actual argument: conclusion first: these predictions have no merit. Why? because of this appeal to history and also this appeal to a particular argument that does not prove that the OPA is without merit.

Let's pause for a second here: if this argument wanted to prove that OPA was baseless or without merit what it would have to do is prove that there are no bridges between the links that OPA lays out or prove that the links themselves are without merit. A good argument would have to say something like: in no way does ghost tv shows actually do this thing: foster superstition. Instead, what this argument actually does is say: here is a historical example of something that is commensurate with what OPA states is the case. In short, the argument that the television executive gives here does not disprove the line of reasoning in OPA, it does not arise to that level. As AC (A) points out: what the television executive says could actually happen at the same time as what the OPA says, meaning the TV executive's statements do not possess the power the executive thinks they do! The executive has mounted an argument that does nothing here.

Now, there is a bunch to say about this flaw: it has appeared before, but we will leave that for another time!

Best,
David

Trusttheprocess

As always David - you da best