LSAT 135 – Section 4 – Question 22

LSAT 135 - Section 4 - Question 22

December 2011

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:32

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
PT135 S4 Q22
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
Link Assumption +LinkA
Analogy +An
A
53%
167
B
17%
161
C
21%
163
D
8%
160
E
1%
156
151
163
175
 +Hardest 147.853 +SubsectionMedium

Scientist: Physicists claim that their system of careful peer review prevents scientific fraud in physics effectively. But biologists claimed the same thing for their field 20 years ago, and they turned out to be wrong. Since then, biologists have greatly enhanced their discipline’s safeguards against scientific fraud, thus preventing further major incidents. It would be conducive to progress in physics if physicists were to do the same thing.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that if physicists were to greatly enhance their discipline’s safeguards against scientific fraud, progress in physics would be advanced. This is based on an analogy to what occurred in the field of biology. Biologists enhanced their discipline’s safeguards against scientific fraud, and this prevented major incidents of fraud.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that preventing major incidents of fraud is something that would help advance progress in physics. The author also assumes that what happened in biology after biologists enhanced safeguards is likely to happen in physics after physicists enhance safeguards.

A
Major incidents of scientific fraud in a scientific discipline are deleterious to progress in that discipline.
This strengthens the link between preventing major incidents of fraud and advancing progress in a scientific discipline. Without (A), the argument contains no premise that allows us to conclude that anything is “conducive to progress in physics.”
B
Very few incidents of even minor scientific fraud have occurred in biology over the last 20 years.
The premises already establish that “further major incidents” of fraud were prevented in biology after the enhanced safeguards. What’s missing is how this relates to scientific progress in the field.
C
No system of careful peer review is completely effective in preventing scientific fraud in any scientific discipline.
The physicists never claimed that their peer review system was “completely” effective. We want to establish that improving physics’ safeguards will help advance progress in physics. Showing that the current peer review system isn’t perfect doesn’t help us reach this conclusion.
D
Twenty years ago the system of peer review in biology was less effective in preventing scientific fraud than the system of peer review in physics is today.
If anything, this might weaken by pointing out a relevant difference between biology and physics that could suggest what happened in biology after safeguards were established wouldn’t necessarily happen to physics.
E
Over the years, there have been relatively few, if any, major incidents of scientific fraud in physics.
If anything, this might weaken by suggesting that stronger safeguards in physics wouldn’t necessarily have a meaningful impact on major incidents of fraud, since there are already so few.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 135 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply