PT155.S4.Q24 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

If a theory is empirical → there is a conceivable observation that could refute the the theory if the theory were false

If there is NOT a conceivable observation that could refute the theory if the theory were false → theory is NOT empirical

The correct answer will either:

Conclude that a theory is NOT empirical, based on premises that establish there is NO conceivable observation that could refute the theory if it were false

OR

Conclude that there IS a conceivable observation that could refute the theory if it were false, based on premises that establish the theory IS empirical

The correct answer CANNOT conclude that the theory IS empirical. And it CANNOT conclude that there is NO conceivable observation that could refute the theory if the theory were false. (If you think we can support these conclusions using the principle, you are confusing sufficient and necessary conditions of the principle.)

(A) doesn’t establish that there is no conceivable observation that could refute the Big Bang theory if it were false. Although no one was present at the origin of the universe, that doesn’t imply we can’t conceive of an observation that could falsify the theory. Maybe there are certain measurements we could make of various elements in planets or stars that could falsify the Big Bang theory.

Unreachable conclusion. (B) concludes that there is NO conceivable observation that could refute a theory. But the principle we’re given only allows us to say that IF there’s no conceivable observation that could refute a theory, then the theory can’t be empirical. It doesn’t allow us to conclude that there’s no conceivable observation that could refute a theory. (If you think it does, you’re confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.)

The premise of (C) establishes that psychoanalysis does not have any conceivable theory that could refute it. So, based on the principle, we can conclude that it’s not empirical.

Unreachable conclusion. (D) concludes that a theory IS empirical. But the principle establishes a necessary condition for being empirical. That allows us to conclude that if the necessary condition isn’t met, a theory is NOT empirical. It does not allow us to conclude that something IS empirical. (If you think it does, you’re confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.)

(E) concludes that a theory is true. But the principle does not allow us to conclude that a theory is true. The theory allows us to conclude that a theory is NOT empirical or that there exists a conceivable observation that could refute a theory.

PrepTest 155 - Section 4 - Question 24

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action