PT65.S4.Q22 - Physicists claim that their system of careful peer review...

I say go go goI say go go go Alum Member
edited June 2021 in Logical Reasoning 211 karma

I have a hard time understanding why C is wrong.

My case for C is this:

Why would they need to increase their safeguards if they have the greatest safeguards out there. That would mean they can’t improve and so it would weaken

Because if we are going to sell them on this idea and physics say “no thanks this is 100% effective” how can we counter that?

Admin Note:


  • Glutton for the LSATGlutton for the LSAT Monthly Member
    edited June 2021 513 karma

    (C) has a neutral effect on the stimulus. It's not weakening the claim that by implementing peer review, biologists have been able to increase protection from incidences of scientific fraud.

    What (C) is saying is that even if we have a system of peer review, this specific system of peer review won't always 100% guarantee protection from scientific fraud.

    This paraphrase is coherent and congruent with the claim in the stimulus. The stimulus' claim, again, does not say biologists think that peer review 100% (completely) prevents fraud; what they do say is that it increases fraud protection. (An increase could be anywhere from going to 0% effectiveness to 100% effectiveness and anything in between.)

Sign In or Register to comment.