Scientists use "light absorbing medium" to explain dim stars.
Einstein's relativity already explains why stars are dim.
Therefore Scientists are wrong.
This a is necessary assumption question, so we had to find something that the argument depends on.
C. sounds more like a sufficient assumption instead of necessary one. It is basically saying that:
If theory explains phenomenon and theory not a part of an existing theory -> Theory is correct.
New theory is a part of existing theory
Therefore, new theory is incorrect
This would indeed ruin the argument, but is it necessary? No, it isn't necessary because that is not the only "rule" you can come up with to lead to the conclusion.
E. does give us a necessary assumption. What if Einstein's relativity did indeed talk about light absorbing mediums? Wouldn't that ruin the argument? The author is saying that the new hypothesis is wrong because relativity already explains the answer. For the theory about light absorbing mediums to be wrong, that means that relativity (which the author says is right) must not include anything about light absorbing mediums. That is the necessary assumption that the author is making.
What is the theory that is not adequately accounted for? The "theory' in AC C seems to be something that the question stem does not talk about. We dont know if the invisible spectrum theory "adequately account" for anything, we just know that relativity accounts for star's visibility better.
Negating E destroys the argument. If relativity relies on invisible light spectrum to account completely for the phenomenon, we cannot disregard invisible spectrum at all, since saying that invisible light spectrum shouldn't be consider would also make relativity theory irrelevant
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
2 comments
The main argument of this question is:
Scientists use "light absorbing medium" to explain dim stars.
Einstein's relativity already explains why stars are dim.
Therefore Scientists are wrong.
This a is necessary assumption question, so we had to find something that the argument depends on.
C. sounds more like a sufficient assumption instead of necessary one. It is basically saying that:
If theory explains phenomenon and theory not a part of an existing theory -> Theory is correct.
New theory is a part of existing theory
Therefore, new theory is incorrect
This would indeed ruin the argument, but is it necessary? No, it isn't necessary because that is not the only "rule" you can come up with to lead to the conclusion.
E. does give us a necessary assumption. What if Einstein's relativity did indeed talk about light absorbing mediums? Wouldn't that ruin the argument? The author is saying that the new hypothesis is wrong because relativity already explains the answer. For the theory about light absorbing mediums to be wrong, that means that relativity (which the author says is right) must not include anything about light absorbing mediums. That is the necessary assumption that the author is making.
What is the theory that is not adequately accounted for? The "theory' in AC C seems to be something that the question stem does not talk about. We dont know if the invisible spectrum theory "adequately account" for anything, we just know that relativity accounts for star's visibility better.
Negating E destroys the argument. If relativity relies on invisible light spectrum to account completely for the phenomenon, we cannot disregard invisible spectrum at all, since saying that invisible light spectrum shouldn't be consider would also make relativity theory irrelevant