Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S2 · Q18 It is impossible to do science

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

It is impossible to do science without measuring.

Conclusion (Hence)

Science is arbitrary.

Evidence (since)

The selection of a unit of measurement is always arbitrary.

It is impossible to do science without measuring. It's impossible to measure without having first selected units of measurement.

Evaluate

This argument screams to be diagrammed algebraically, because it combines the two telltale signs: conditional logic and repeating symbols.

The concepts are all used twice, so we'll just assign A / B / C / D to them in order to quickly write an abstract recipe.

P1: It's impossible to A without B. A → B P2: It's impossible to B without C. B → C P3: C is always D. C → D C: A is D. A → D

Goal

Let's look for an answer with two premises that give us this A requires B, B requires C chain.

We also want a premise that says that C is D (it might not feel conditional, like the others did). And then we want a conclusion that says A is D.

18.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?

  1. Correct

    Long hours of practice are

    Why this is right

    This looks good. Everything can be matched. Science requires measuring. Performing hard music requires developing music skill Measuring requires selecting units. Developing music skill requires long hours. Selecting units is arbitrary. Long hours are tedious. So, Science is arbitrary. Performing hard music is tedious. P1: A → B P2: B → C P3: C is X. C: A is X.

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

    62% picked this

  2. You have to advertise to

    Bad Evidence Match

    One quick way to discount this one is that there are only 2 premises, whereas the original argument had 3. Those two premises can chain together, but there's no 3rd premise to give us the C to D action we need. We could pile on and say the conclusion is also invalid. It should say "it is expensive to run an expanding business", not refer to all businesses.

    8% picked this

  3. It is permissible to sit

    Bad Evidence Match

    We need at least two conditional premises that chain together. This argument only has one conditional premise ("one must walk"). The other two aren't conditional - it's permissible - one way is We can say that "Sitting on the benches requires walking to them", but we can't chain on to that and say that "walking to the benches requires [some other thing]". So it dies there.

    9% picked this

  4. It is impossible to be

    Bad Evidence Match

    One quick way to discount this one is that there are only 2 premises, whereas the original argument had 3. We'd be able to say that "being a manager requires evaluating people, and evaluating people requires subjectivity". But there's no 3rd premise to give us the C to D action we need. The argument would have to go on to say something like, "And since subjectivity is judgmental, being a manager is judgmental".

    21% picked this

  5. Some farming on the plains

    Bad Conclusion Match

    One quick way to discount this one is that the conclusion brings in a brand new concept "a new source of water". We also don't have premises that chain together. We can say "some farming requires irrigation", but then there's nothing to add on to that with "irrigation requires [some other thing]". They say that irrigation now uses water pumped from aquifers, but it's not presented as a required consequence of irrigation, so it doesn't chain up like in our original.

    1% 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