Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 2 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 573 Technical Problems
- 280 Off-topic
25.2.20 (Flaw Questions Problem Set 18)
Accounts Playable
Live Sage ⭐
I had a really hard time understanding the answer choices, which is why I missed this one. I don't understand how D is the flaw.
Determinism is the belief that everything has a preceding cause sufficient for its occurrence. This belief is wrong since we cannot know the complete state at any given time since we cannot accurately measure both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time.
What I am looking for: Is knowing the complete state relevant? Why can't a complete understanding of the state of the universe be beyond our understating and determinism still be correct? Next, is not accurately measuring position/velocity of subatomic particles evidence for not knowing the complete state of the universe?
Answer A: This isn't the flaw in the reasoning. Just because we can't know at the same time doesn't mean we can't know them independently.
Answer B: This is what I chose, and I chose it because I couldn't figure out what D actually said. I guess this isn't the flaw since the argument isn't saying "since we can't know the complete state of the universe we can't know the states of the particles." I think this statement is backwards since the lack of knowing the states of the particles is used to support the idea that we don't know the state of the universe.
Answer C: Isn't this exactly the same idea as A? Skip.
Answer
I don't understand how this is the flaw. Where does the argument claim that there is "no complete state of the universe?" The argument only says "it's impossible to know the complete state of the universe" because we don't know the complete state of the subatomic particles. The point of the argument is that determinism is incorrect, but I don't see how saying determinism is false means that there is no complete state of the universe. Why can't determinism be wrong since the preceding cause isn't sufficient for the occurrence, or for some type of negation of the necessary conditions provided in the first 2 sentences?
Answer E: I don't really know why this is wrong other than it just "feels" wrong.
Determinism is the belief that everything has a preceding cause sufficient for its occurrence. This belief is wrong since we cannot know the complete state at any given time since we cannot accurately measure both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time.
What I am looking for: Is knowing the complete state relevant? Why can't a complete understanding of the state of the universe be beyond our understating and determinism still be correct? Next, is not accurately measuring position/velocity of subatomic particles evidence for not knowing the complete state of the universe?
Answer A: This isn't the flaw in the reasoning. Just because we can't know at the same time doesn't mean we can't know them independently.
Answer B: This is what I chose, and I chose it because I couldn't figure out what D actually said. I guess this isn't the flaw since the argument isn't saying "since we can't know the complete state of the universe we can't know the states of the particles." I think this statement is backwards since the lack of knowing the states of the particles is used to support the idea that we don't know the state of the universe.
Answer C: Isn't this exactly the same idea as A? Skip.
Answer
I don't understand how this is the flaw. Where does the argument claim that there is "no complete state of the universe?" The argument only says "it's impossible to know the complete state of the universe" because we don't know the complete state of the subatomic particles. The point of the argument is that determinism is incorrect, but I don't see how saying determinism is false means that there is no complete state of the universe. Why can't determinism be wrong since the preceding cause isn't sufficient for the occurrence, or for some type of negation of the necessary conditions provided in the first 2 sentences?Answer E: I don't really know why this is wrong other than it just "feels" wrong.
