Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT144 S1 P4 Q20 Explanation

Karl Popper

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsMain PointScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Passage

Karl Popper’s main contribution to the philosophy of science concerns the power of negative evidence. The fundamental point is simple: No number of white swans, for example, can ever prove that all swans are white, but a single black swan disproves the hypothesis. Popper gives this logical asymmetry between positive and negative a theory counts as scientific only if it makes predictions that are testable in this way.

However, Popper’s use of the logical asymmetry does not adequately capture the actual situation scientists face. If a theory deductively entails a false prediction, then the theory must be false as well. But a scientific theory rarely entails predictions on its own. When scientists actually derive a theory’s predictions, they almost always more than one possible explanation. Positive evidence is never conclusive. But negative evidence rarely is either.

Passage B When the planet Uranus was discovered, astronomers attempted to predict its orbit. They based their predictions on Newton’s laws and auxiliary assumptions about the mass of the sun and the masses, orbits, and velocities of other planets. One of the auxiliary assumptions was that no planets existed in the vicinity precise place it would have to be to bring their calculations into alignment with their observations.

Later astronomers, again using Newton’s laws, predicted the orbit of Mercury. Once again, the predictions were not borne out. They hypothesized the existence of another planet in the vicinity, which they called Vulcan. However, Vulcan was never found, and some scientists began to think that perhaps Newton’s laws were in error. Finally, to the rejection of Newton’s theory of gravity and to increased confidence in Einstein’s theory.

What this question is testing

Main Point

Your task

Capture the passage's overall primary point — the claim everything else supports.

Common trap

Answers that are true but too narrow (a single paragraph) or too broad (beyond the passage's scope).

Winning move

Summarize the whole passage in one sentence first, then match it to a choice.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
20.

Which one of the following is a central topic of

Answer choices

  1. Fails B: positive evidence7% picked this

    the logical asymmetry of positive and

    This answer is a fine match for passage A, but passage B never brings up positive evidence, nor does it speak to an asymmetry between how strong positive vs. negative evidence is.

  2. Fails A: planetary orbits4% picked this

    the role of auxiliary assumptions in predicting

    This is a decent match for passage B, but passage A never talked about "planetary orbits".

  3. Correct67% picked this

    the role of negative evidence in

    Why this is right

    Our prephrase for passage A was something like, "it's mainly concerned with what negative evidence does / doesn't tell us about the underlying theory". And passage B discussed examples in which negative evidence either showed that an auxiliary assumption was wrong or showed that the underlying theory was wrong (initial measurements of Uranus's orbit and of Mercury's orbit were each negative evidence for Newton's theory). Both passages are letting us know that negative evidence plays this mixed role in scientific research: sometimes it shows us that one of our auxiliary assumptions is wrong / sometimes it shows us that the underlying theory is wrong.

    Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  4. Fails Both20% picked this

    the proper technique for confirming a

    Neither passage speaks about the "proper" way to confirm a scientific theory. For example, according to passage A, what is the proper technique for confirming a scientific theory? [crickets] Is the proper technique killing all the black swans so that you never have negative evidence? We don't have any roadmap from passage A about how we should confirm a theory. Passage A's focus is about the supposed strength of negative evidence (which is the opposite of confirming a theory) not being as strong as Popper implies.

  5. Fails Both: irrelevance1% picked this

    the irrelevance of experimentation for disproving a

    Neither passage is making the extreme and counterintuitive claim that experimentation is completely irrelevant and worthless when it comes to trying to disprove a scientific theory.

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