LSAT 111 – Section 3 – Question 26

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 26

October 2001

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:09

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT111 S3 Q26	+LR +Exp	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Rule-Application +RuleApp	A 12% 163 B 66% 168 C 8% 164 D 12% 163 E 3% 162	145 159 173	+Harder	147.206 +SubsectionMedium

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries

First Previous1Next Last

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

People ought to take into account a discipline’s blemished origins when assessing the scientific value of that discipline. Take, for example, chemistry. It must be considered that many of its landmark results were obtained by alchemists—a group whose superstitions and appeals to magic dominated the early development of chemical theory.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that, when assessing a discipline's scientific value, people should consider that discipline’s blemished origins. He points to chemistry as an example, noting that many important discoveries were made by alchemists, whose superstitions and belief in magic shaped early chemical theory.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author concludes that people should consider a discipline’s blemished origins when assessing that discipline’s scientific value. But he fails to consider whether those origins are relevant to how the discipline functions today. To use his example, what if chemistry today is entirely different from chemistry as practiced by the alchemists? In that case, why should we consider the alchemists when judging chemistry’s current scientific value?

fails to establish that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable

The author never assumes that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable. He just argues that blemished origins should be considered when assessing a discipline’s scientific value.

fails to consider how chemistry’s current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists mentioned

The author fails to consider the possibility that alchemists’ practices are entirely different from current chemistry practices and so perhaps should not be considered when assessing chemistry’s scientific value.

uses an example to contradict the principle under consideration

The author does use an example, but he uses it to support the principle under consideration, not to contradict it.

does not prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect

The author never assumes that disciplines that are not valuable have suspect origins, so he doesn’t need to prove this. He doesn’t say how a discipline’s origins affect its scientific values, only that its origins should be considered when assessing its value.

uses the word “discipline” in two different senses

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation.” The author doesn’t make this mistake because he uses the word “discipline” consistently throughout his argument.

LSAT 111 – Section 3 – Question 26

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 26

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel