Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S1 · Q13 Dr. Khan: Professor Bums recognizes

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

Dr. Khan: Professor Bums recognizes that recent observations fail to confirm earlier ones that apparently showed a comet reservoir far out in our solar system.

Statements

Recent observations fail to confirm earlier ones that apparently showed a comet reservoir far out in our solar system (i.e. recent observations did not provide evidence of a comet reservoir far out in the solar system).

Professor B recognizes this and claims that this nonconfirmation is enough to show that earlier observations were incorrect.

pivot (But) The recent observations occurred under poor conditions.

Evaluate

We have to distinguish between factual claims and attributed opinions sometimes on Inference questions, but the first sentence is both.

Saying that "Professor Bums recognizes X" means both that X is true (according to the speaker, whose statements we are accepting as true) and that Professor Bums believes it.

There isn't any Conditional, Causal, or Mathematical wording in this paragraph but there is a Pivot. Typically, if a Most Supported paragraph ends with a Pivot sentence, the correct answer represents a safely worded way of resolving the tension created by the pivot word. We call that sort of pattern Reconcile the Pivot.

The tension here is that Professor Bums thinks that new observations refute old observations, but the speaker is pointing out that these new observations occurred under poor conditions.

This seems to suggest that the new data points aren't super trustworthy. Would we be a little hasty to toss out the old observations as invalid, based off some sketchy new observations?

Goal

The wrong answers will probably go overboard and say,

But we want something much more moderate, like, or .

13.

Which one of the following is most supported by Dr. Khan's statements?

  1. If the recent observations had

    Too Strong / Speculative

    It's always dangerous to predict the outcome of a counterfactual. We don't know anything about what would be true if the recent observations had been made under good conditions. They may have refuted the old comet reservoir observations; they may have corroborated them. Who knows?

    10% picked this

  2. Contrary to Professor Bums's view,

    Too Strong: confirm

    This flies too far in the right direction. The author is pointing out that the recent observations are sketchy to push back a little at Bums's view that the new data refutes the old data. Our author is merely suggesting, "Whoa ... these aren't great observations. They were under poor conditions. Let's not draw any definitive conclusions about the old observations based on these sketchy ones." This answer is saying, "Whoa .. these aren't great observations. Thus, you're dead wrong, Bums. They actually confirm the earlier observations."

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    Professor Bums's claim about the

    Why this is right

    This still sounds more definitive than I'd expect (Bums's claim is incorrect), but this is the most supportable answer available. The author is definitely suggesting that we'd be hasty to throw out the old observations based on these sketchy new ones. So our author disagrees that these new observations imply that the old ones are incorrect. Bums's claim was extreme, so denying it is a moderate idea. Bums was like, "These new observations are enough / are sufficient ... these new observations prove that the earlier ones were wrong." By saying Bums's claim is incorrect, we're only saying, "Whoa --- the new observations don't prove the old ones were wrong".

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

    58% picked this

  4. The recent observations, even if

    Too Speculative

    We don't know anything about what would be true if the recent observations had been made under good conditions. They may have refuted the old comet reservoir observations; they may have corroborated them. Who knows?

    12% picked this

  5. The poor conditions present during

    Too Strong: worthless

    This also goes too far in the correct direction. The author is pointing out that the recent observations are sketchy, not worthless. He's just trying to push back a little at Bums's view that the new data refutes the old data. Our author is merely suggesting, "Hey ... these aren't great observations. They were under poor conditions. Let's not draw any definitive conclusions about the old observations based on these sketchy ones." But it's taking it to a whole other level to say the recent observations are worthless.

    19% 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