Logical Reasoning

PT11 · S4 · Q7 The scientific theory of evolution

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The scientific theory of evolution has challenged the view of human origin as divine creation and sees us as simply descended from the same ancestors as the apes.

Conclusion (Thus)

Science has taken away much that is also greatly valued.

Evidence

Evolutionary theory (i.e. science) has challenged the view of humans as divinely created and treats us as sharing ancestors with the apes.

In doing so, science and technology have deprived us of a view in which our importance is assured.

Evaluate

The phrase "greatly valued" appears nowhere in the evidence, so it's a New Concept in the Conclusion, which means the correct answer will almost certainly address it.

What, in the evidence, was the author alluding to when he talked about "much that is greatly valued"?

The evidence tells us what science took away: they deprived us of a view in which human importance is assured.

The conclusion tells us something about that loss: they deprived us of something greatly valued.

Because of the parallel nature of the premise and the conclusion, this seems to be setting us up for a Missing Link answer, connecting "a view in which human importance is assured" and "greatly valued".

Goal

This seems like it's testing a Missing Link, so let's look for an answer saying "we greatly value viewing humans as important".

7.

Which one of the following is assumed in the passage?

  1. Science and technology are of

    Irrelevant Comparison

    The author never ranks science against religion. The only thing quasi-religious in the argument is the view that humans are divinely created, but that view doesn't mean someone belongs to a religion. In general, it doesn't matter where science and technology rank on the Scale of Valuable Things. We're only here to analyze whether science has taken away something we greatly value. We're not here to assess the overall value of science.

    3% picked this

  2. People have resisted the advances

    Out of Scope

    Nothing in the passage concerns how people have reacted to scientific advances. The argument is about what those advances did, not about whether anyone pushed back. If we negated this and said, "Hey author, no one has ever resisted science," that wouldn't weaken. The author could freely agree, like, "Sure, they always accept science because they love technological advances, but nonetheless, as we accept science it does take away much that is greatly valued."

    1% picked this

  3. The assurance that people are

    Correct

    This is lovably connecting Evidence language ("humans being assured of their own importance") with Conclusion language ("greatly valued"). The evidence says science deprived us of a view in which our importance is assured. The conclusion says science took away something greatly valued. The only way the first supports the second is if the assurance of human importance is itself highly valued. Negate this answer, such that people do not much value being assured of their importance, and the loss the author describes is no longer a loss of anything valued.

    92% picked this

  4. The world was a better

    Too Strong

    The author concedes that science has eased everyday life and provided brilliant insights. Saying the world was better before science goes well past "science took away something valued" into a net judgment the author never makes. The negation, "The world is better off SINCE the advent of science and tech" doesn't weaken because a "highly valued" thing can be lost even in a world that is better overall.

    2% picked this

  5. The need of people to

    Contradicted

    The passage says science and technology "deprived us" of the view that assures our importance. An answer saying science now meets the need to feel important runs directly against that evidence. The author assumes the opposite, that science left the need unmet.

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free