Logical Reasoning

PT127 · S1 · Q21 Scientist: Isaac Newton’s Principia, the

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

Scientist: Isaac Newton’s Principia,the seventeenth-century work that served as the cornerstone of physics for over two centuries, could at first be understood by only a handful of people, but a basic understanding of Newton’s ideas eventually spread throughout the world.

Conclusion (Thus)

Recent scientific research may also become part of everyone's intellectual heritage.

Counterpoint

Even though recent scientific research requires language that seems esoteric (hard to understand) to most modern readers,

Intermediate Conc (this shows that)

Barriers to communication between scientists and the public are not impermeable.

Evidence

Netwon's Principia was not understandable to most of its contemporaneous audience, but a basic understanding of Newton's ideas eventually spread globally and it served as the cornerstone of physics for over two centuries.

Evaluate

They're asking us about the grammatically inessential modifier in the final sentence, which contains our Main Conclusion.

When a Main Conclusion packages in a noun modifier, we treat that modifier as a fact.

For example, given this conclusion ... Thus, Dan's attorney, who went to Harvard, is clearly capable of solving this tax problem.

.... we would think that it's being factually presented to us that Dan's attorney went to Harvard, whereas the Conclusion is presenting the speculative opinion that she would clearly be capable of solving this tax problem.

The claim from the last sentence that they're asking us about is technically an Opposing idea, since the conclusion is that whereas the claim we're being asked about is saying . That undermines the idea that this modern science will ultimately be absorbed into our common wisdom.

However, the author's argument is trying to show by analogy that science that is initially too confusing for the masses (like Newton's was) can still eventually be accepted.

Goal

Let's look for something like, .

21.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the scientist's argument by the claim that recent scientific research can often be described only in language that seems esoteric to most contemporary readers?

  1. It is raised as a

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: truth called into doubt The first half of this is close to being fine, but the second half has no support. The author is never calling into doubt the truth of the claim that "modern science is wicked confusing to most people". She is fully accepting the truth of that idea and saying, "But don't worry. They felt the same about Newton as we do about our modern science. Eventually a basic understanding might spread. There won't necessarily always be this barrier to understanding."

    5% picked this

  2. It is a premise that

    Too Strong: only superficially different

    The author is saying that recent scientific research has one thing in common with Newton's Principia -- they both at first can only be understood by a small group of knowledgeable science type people. But it's way stronger to say that recent research is only superficially different from Newton's claims (i.e. they are essentially the same claims).

    5% picked this

  3. It is cited as further

    Wrong Role

    Our claim is not evidence. It doesn't have a Supporting relationship to the main conclusion. It is a potential reason to doubt the conclusion, but it is countered by the intermediate conclusion that "the barriers to communication between scientists and the public are not impermeable".

    20% picked this

  4. Correct

    It is a claim that

    Why this is right

    This answer doesn't identify the relationship between our claim and the final conclusion (our claim somewhat undermines the plausibility of the final conclusion). But it accurately says that our claim is one of the key ways that the author is making her argument by analogy. If we were never told that recent scientific research can only be understood by a small circle of people, then we would have no idea why we talked about Newton's Principia in the preceding sentences. If that final sentence just said, "Thus recent scientific research may also become part of everyone's heritage", we'd wonder what the connection was to the previous two sentences ... are you saying that recent research is also something that can at first be understood by only a handful of people?

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

    69% picked this

  5. It serves to cast doubt

    Opposite

    Our claim is meant to provide the underlying similarity between Newton's Principia and recent scientific research, not to cast doubt on the similarity.

    0% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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