Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT144 S1 P4 Q23 Explanation

Karl Popper

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

TopicsMeaning in ContextScience

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

Meaning in Context

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

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

The question
23.

In saying that Popper gives a certain idea “hyperbolic application” (first paragraph), the author of passage A means

Answer choices

  1. Not About Hyperbole10% picked this

    extends the idea to cases in which it does

    In the second sentence of Paragraph 2, the author does acknowledge that Popper's thinking applies to cases in which a theory deductively entails a false prediction. She goes onto say that in the practical world of science, this is rarely happening. So the author does think that Popper is extending his thinking to cases (real world science) where it doesn't apply. But the author's meaning of 'hyperbolic application' is "too strongly put", because hyperbole means exaggeration. That's slightly different from this answer which is, "too broadly extended". I could consider this choice if there weren't a closer match to "you're overstating the power of negative evidence".

  2. Opposite1% picked this

    underestimates the significance of the

    "underestimating" is the opposite of "hyperbolizing", which is all about overstating something.

  3. Out of Scope: logical fallacy7% picked this

    commits a logical fallacy in reasoning about

    Hyperbolizing is definitely a dubious way of arguing, but no one really calls that a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies tend to be about making some type of assumption (assuming that if it's sufficient, it's necessary ... assuming that if it's true of the part, it's true of the whole). There's no way to cast a hyperbolic statement as a logical fallacy, because it doesn't involve a fallacious move from one idea to another.

  4. Correct69% picked this

    draws too radical a conclusion from

    Why this is right

    Hyperbolic = exaggerated = too radical Our author's rebuttal in the 2nd paragraph is saying, "it's too radical to say that positive evidence is worthless and negative evidence is essentially disproof. Sometimes negative evidence really just means that an auxiliary assumption was wrong, and the theory you're testing may still be accurate."

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

  5. Out of Scope: irrelevant to theory14% picked this

    exaggerates the idea's relevance to a

    This answer is trying to entice people with the first word, the dictionary definition of "hyperbolize" -- exaggerates. But we have to validate every word in an answer, and our author is never saying that Popper's ideas about negative evidence are not as relevant as he claims they are to a specific theory. Popper's ideas aren't about any specific theory; they're about all potential theories.

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