Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
PT68.S3.Q20 - scientist: given the human tendency
stcaitmokyu
Free Trial Member
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-20/
I was not sure between B and D.
I thought B is correct because it bases its conclusion on premise which contradicts one of its premise...
(It says "the odds are overwhelming that we would be alive during this period too" while also says "because we are not alive during this period")
Is B wrong because they are both premises and one of them is hypothesis?
By the way regarding D...isn't that "not alive during this period" seems true because how can ppl live so long? (It would take centuries right?) The question is not asking flaw in the argument, but I was just wondering whether the argument is valid or not.
Thanks,
I was not sure between B and D.
I thought B is correct because it bases its conclusion on premise which contradicts one of its premise...
(It says "the odds are overwhelming that we would be alive during this period too" while also says "because we are not alive during this period")
Is B wrong because they are both premises and one of them is hypothesis?
By the way regarding D...isn't that "not alive during this period" seems true because how can ppl live so long? (It would take centuries right?) The question is not asking flaw in the argument, but I was just wondering whether the argument is valid or not.
Thanks,
Comments
Answer D is correct because it describes the reasoning correctly. An event is taken to be likely (the odds are overwhelming), the hypothesis hasn't occurred (we aren't alive during this period), and we infer that the hypothesis is false (colonization won't happen).
The author's reasoning isn't very good, and one part of the argument is demonstrably wrong in my opinion. We do have reason to think our time is unrepresentative since the sample size he is using is only ours (one). Plus, we haven't colonized anything yet, so doesn't that make our time different anyway? If the vast majority of people are going to live in a time that has been colonized and we then use a non-colonized time to make a prediction about the likelihood of colonization, that seems like a weird thing to do.