Logical Reasoning

PT111 · S3 · Q26 People ought to take into account

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

People ought to take into account a discipline’s blemished origins when assessing the scientific value of that discipline.

Conclusion

People ought to take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing the scientific value of that discipline.

Evidence

Chemistry, for example, had some of its landmark results discovered by alchemists, who believed in crazy stuff like superstitions and magic and helped develop early chemical theory.

Evaluate

This is a weird argument Let's think about the Anti-Conclusion client we're representing: When we're assessing the value of a scientific discipline, such as chemistry, we do NOT need to take into account its blemished origins.

Given that early chemical theory sounds like some superstitious / magical non-scientific rubbish, how can we argue that this is irrelevant (does not need to be taken into account) when it comes to assessing what value the discipline of chemistry has.

I guess we would argue that even though it has an embarrassing, scientifically dubious origin story, it's still a really successful scientific theory, and some of our fanciest inventions are based on the correct predictions of chemical reactions, according to the laws of chemistry.

Goal

Look for an answer saying "chemistry is an unrepresentative sample", or an answer saying that .

26.

The reasoning above is most susceptible to criticism because the author

  1. fails to establish that disciplines

    Illegal Opposite

    When we see fails to establish X, we just ask ourselves, "Did the author need to establish X? Was that one of her assumptions?" The author seems to be assuming that "if a discipline has blemished origins, we might not think of them being as valuable". This answer is saying the author was assuming "if a discipline has unblemished origins, then it is valuable", which is trying to pull an illegal opposite with one of the author's actual assumptions.

    14% picked this

  2. Correct

    fails to consider how chemistry’s

    Why this is right

    Can we object to this argument by talking about how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists? Yes, potentially. If we say "author, chemistry is currently a scientific discipline that has nothing to do with magic and superstition. It is a highly rigorous and accomplished science. Thus, if we're assessing the scientific value of chemistry, shouldn't we look at what it is, not what it was?" If we're assessing the value of a novel, should we take into account the blemishes of the first draft of the manuscript?

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    62% picked this

  3. uses an example to contradict

    Opposite: Contradict Not a Flaw

    The author used an example to support the principle under consideration. Also, there's nothing inherently flawed or wrong about using an example to contradict a principle under consideration, so it would be weird to imagine a situation where this would be a correct answer (it would have to be like the famous Internal Contradiction flaw, where an author is arguing for Principle X but introduces an example that contradicts Principle X).

    10% picked this

  4. does not prove that most

    Too Strong: Most Reversed Logic

    Does not prove = fails to specify = assumes Did the author assume not scientifically ? probably have valuable blemished origins No, she was closer to assuming has blemished ? probably not origins sci valuable

    13% picked this

  5. uses the word “discipline” in

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to the famous Equivocation flaw, in which the author uses the same term or concept in two very different ways. There are different meanings to discipline: Discipline - a field of study Discipline - punishment Discipline - rigorous adherence to a standard But the author only used it consistently to mean "a field of study".

    2% 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