Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S3 · Q3 When Copernicus changed the way we think

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

When Copernicus changed the way we think about the solar system, he did so not by discovering new information, but by looking differently at information already available.

Example 1

Copernicus made a breakthrough by looking different at info already available.

Example 2

Jenner made a breakthrough by shifting his focus from the common emphasis to something different.

Evaluation

As we usually do when we read Inference paragraphs, we pay attention to overlapping ideas. In both examples, the idea of “looking differently” or “shifting focus” came up in association with an important discovery.

Goal

The correct answer will likely be some safely worded claim that associates breakthroughs and discoveries with “looking at things differently”.

3.

The examples provided above illustrate which one of the following?

  1. Many valuable intellectual accomplishments occur

    Out of Scope: “chance”

    These examples don’t seem to be by chance. The causal difference-maker behind these accomplishments is shifting your focus / approach.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    Shifting from earlier modes of

    Why this is right

    “Shifting from earlier modes of thought” works with both examples, to line up with looked at same stuff in a different way and shifted focus from what had been the more common emphasis. And both examples were important advances.

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

    92% picked this

  3. The ability to look at

    Too Strong: "rare" / Opposite

    This does reinforce the causal difference-maker (looking at things differently), but we have no way to say this is rare. In fact, the last sentence says that history is full of examples like these, so we have some reason to think it’s not rare.

    1% picked this

  4. Understanding is advanced less often

    Out of Scope Comparison

    Out of Scope Comparison: "better organization" / Opposite We have no way to know whether more advances came from This or from That. If anything, this answer goes against our examples. Our two examples were cases where understanding was advanced, but there was not an accumulation of new information. Rather, they looked at existing information differently (which may or may not have involved a better way of organizing the available info).

    6% picked this

  5. Dramatic intellectual breakthroughs are more

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: “information available is relatively small” This doesn’t touch on the causal difference-maker in our two examples, which was looking at things differently. Working in a field with relatively little available information is totally out of scope.

    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.

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