PT35.S4.Q11 - one approach to the question

Accounts Playable

I'm not sure about this one, and I'm having a very tough time seeing why the correct answer is correct.

Link: http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-11/

One way to approach the question "what is real?" is to say that something is real IF AND ONLY IF that thing is posited by the most explanatory powerful theory of the science. Most scientific theories have things posited as real only on theoretical grounds. Therefore, the approach described is flawed.

What I am looking for: This is PSA question, so we need to link up the premise to the conclusion. If something is posited as real only on theoretical grounds, then it isn't a part of the most explanatory powerful theory. That's what I anticipated, but I'm not that confident about it.

Answer A: We don't care about enhancing a theory.

Answer B: This is the correct answer, but I don't really see what it's doing. Doesn't this answer choice assume that there is an overlap between the "most explanatory powerful theory of the science" and "most scientific theories contain only theoretically posited entities?" Why couldn't the "most explanatory powerful theory of the science" be in the group of non-theoretically posited entities (i.e. only in the group of practically posited entities?) That doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption.

Answer C: I think this is kind of like answer A. We don't care about enhancement of a theory.

Answer OK, but this doesn't seem like a sufficient assumption. Plus, are the entities real?

Answer E: I don't think this is it because the author thinks this reasoning is flawed, so this doesn't seem like a sufficient assumption.

Grey Warden

It does seem as if the author is making a slight jump there in assuming the overlap,however, it seems like this is the only answer choice which 'most helps to justify' and make the premises relevant to the conclusion. I see I am not that much of a help, I was brooding over this question and the assumed overlap made me feel confused too

Elle2015

The stimulus is a bit confusing, but we need to find out why it claims the approach it discusses is flawed.

The approach basically states that if something is posited by one of the most powerful theories (in terms of explaining things) then the objects posited by that theory should be said to be real.

The stim. goes on to say that this flawed because most theories contain elements that are posited only on theoretical grounds.

So we have to make some kind of connection between things posited only on theoretical grounds and the approach/realness.

A does not help us make that connection. In other words, it doesn't justify the stim.'s claim that the approach is flawed at all because it says absolutely nothing about theories with elements posited only on theoretical grounds. It's too broad.

C - Like A, this says absolutely nothing about theories with elements posited only on theoretical grounds.

E - Like A and C, this says absolutely nothing about theories with elements posited only on theoretical grounds.

D - This mentions theoretical grounds but it doesn't make a proper connection that justifies why the stim's author has an issue with the approach. The approach is about what should be thought of as real, not what theories should contain. Regardless of whether scientific theories should be grounded on non-theoretical things or not, the author claims that most of them are and because they are there's a problem with the approach.

B - This is the one that makes the connection. It's not perfect, but it mentions the "realness" discussed in the approach and the theoretical grounds that are supposedly causing the approach's flaw. We have to assume that there's a bit of an overlap between the most explanatory theories and those with elements based on only theoretical grounds, but that's okay. There could just as easily not be, but the task that we're given with this question is to justify the reasoning in the stim. which B does. We don't have to make the argument foolproof, just get it on the right track as much as the answer choices will let us. B clearly helps us with this task the most.

Vibrio

@Elle2015 said:
It's not perfect, but it mentions the "realness" discussed in the approach and the theoretical grounds that are supposedly causing the approach's flaw. We have to assume that there's a bit of an overlap between the most explanatory theories and those with elements based on only theoretical grounds, but that's okay.

Can someone please explain to me? I still am not convinced it is okay to make that assumption. To claim that the approach is false, the author will have to say either that not all entities posited by the most powerful theory are real OR that not only those entities posited by the most powerful theory are real. (i.e. at least some entities posited by not most powerful theory are real)
If it were the case that "the most explanatorily powerful theory of the science" lie outside of the group of "most scientific theories containing entities posited solely on theoretical grounds", then, answer choice B does nothing to justify the author's argument in this case and seems as irrelevant to me as the other answer choices. What does the fact that objects posited by strictly theoretical theories not being real have anything to do with whether or not the ones posited by most powerful theory are real?