LSAT 131 – Section 3 – Question 23

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 23

December 2009

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:25

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 Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT131 S3 Q23
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
A
1%
155
B
61%
166
C
25%
162
D
1%
155
E
13%
159
149
160
170
 +Hardest 146.026 +SubsectionMedium

To predict that a device will be invented, one must develop a conception of the device that includes some details at least about how it will function and the consequences of its use. But clearly, then, the notion of predicting an invention is self-contradictory, for inventing means developing a detailed conception, and one cannot predict what has already taken place.

Summarize Argument
Predicting an invention is self-contradictory. Why? Because predicting an invention entails developing a detailed conception of how that invention will function. But if you manage to do that, congrats, you just invented the thing. So that’s not prediction. That’s just invention. Hence, predicting an invention is impossible.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Author argues that something (predicting an invention) is impossible because a necessary condition of that something (developing a detailed conception of how that invention will function) rules that something out by definition (you can’t predict an invention that already exists).

A
constructing a counterexample to a general hypothesis about the future
Descriptively inaccurate. Author does not construct a counterexample. There is no general hypothesis about the future to disprove.
B
appealing to definitions to infer the impossibility of a kind of occurrence
Descriptively accurate. The author implicitly appeals to the definition of “predict” (stating that something will happen) and explicitly appeals to the definition of “invent” (developing a detailed conception) to infer that a kind of occurrence (predicting an invention) is impossible.
C
countering a hypothesis by indicating the falsehood of the implications of that hypothesis
Descriptively inaccurate. We’ll grant that the “hypothesis” is that “it’s possible to predict an invention.” But the author does not demonstrate that the implications of that hypothesis are false. Rather, the author demonstrates that the hypothesis is self-contradictory.
D
pointing out how a problem is widely thought to be scientific yet is really conceptual
Descriptively inaccurate. Argument does not contain any problem that is “widely thought to be scientific” nor does the author point out any problem as being actually “conceptual.”
E
attempting to show that predicting any event implies that it has in fact already taken place
Descriptively inaccurate. Author does not attempt to show that predicting any event implies that it has in fact already taken place. That would mean prediction in general would be impossible. Author only attempts to show that predicting a specific type of event (inventions) would be impossible.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply