PT65.S4.Q22 - Scientist: Physicists claim that their system

Pride Only HurtsPride Only Hurts Alum Member
edited August 2018 in Logical Reasoning 2186 karma

This question is still confusing me after watching the explanation. I thought the question stem was Pseudo Sufficient Assumption.
I thought the best way to approach this was to try to attack the flaw. As an argument by analogy it just seemed highly unreasonable to assume that what works for Biology would work for Physics. I think I'm mostly confused because it didn't strike me as a strengthen question to begin with.

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-4-question-22/

Comments

  • Prudenter DiscerePrudenter Discere Alum Member
    234 karma

    Hi! I want to preface that I did not watch the video because I didn't want to have bias in my reasoning.

    First, the question type is a most strongly supported, so check for assumptions and look for structures that will guide you to make good inferences, but I don't want us to even focus on question type. Let's just focus on the argument structure.

    1. Ctx - Physicists make a claim
    2. Arg - Biologist made same claim 20 years ago and there were wrong.

    Now here is the meat in the reasoning. Look for the change of scope, because that is where the assumption lies.

    We are told that for the bioligists that enhancements prevented fraud, but then we are told that for physicists that it is condusive to progress if they do as the bioligists.

    Question? - How do we go from preventing fraud to condusive to progress? (This is the change of scope).

    By assuming that preventing fraud is condusive to progress or at the very least, we can say that the argument assumes that there is some relationship between preventing fraud and condusive to progress. We can infer that preventing incidents of fraud is good for progress, or conversely, not preventing does not help for progress.

  • Pride Only HurtsPride Only Hurts Alum Member
    2186 karma

    Ahh thanks, that makes perfect sense. It's cookie cutter. I really have no idea why I couldn't wrap my head around that one.

  • Prudenter DiscerePrudenter Discere Alum Member
    234 karma

    Honestly, I would advise you to figure out what were you focusing on. What about the argument did you not truly understand? Take time to reflect on this question. Focusing on NA questions will help you answer these types of questions. Because NA questions often have a change of scope. You go from one idea to the next, and your job to point out the assumption.

  • Sim SimmaSim Simma Alum Member
    168 karma

    I'm pretty sure the argument is the last sentence. Not "biologists made the same claim...", as you seem to be suggesting.

Sign In or Register to comment.