Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT144 S1 P4 Q26 Explanation

Karl Popper

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

TopicsAuthor OpinionScience

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

Author Opinion

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
26.

It can be inferred that the author of passage B would be likely to be most skeptical of which one of the following ideas

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: Popper3% picked this

    Popper's main contribution to the philosophy of science concerned the power

    Passage B had nothing to say about Popper, so we have no ammunition to say it would disagree with a claim about Popper.

  2. Correct72% picked this

    Positive evidence plays no role in supporting

    Why this is right

    This isn't what we expected, but since this claim is so strongly worded, supporting someone disagreeing with it is a low bar. Can we get from Passage B that "positive evidence sometimes, plays some role in supporting a theory?" Yes, B's final sentence says that "when Einstein's predictions matched the observed orbit of Mercury (positive evidence in favor of Einstein's theory), this led to increased confidence in Einstein's theory".

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

  3. Trap6% picked this

    Auxiliary premises are usually needed in order to derive predictions from

    Unsupported Disagree Position: Passage B probably agrees Since passage B was all about analyzing the auxiliary premises that went into the Uranus and Mercury conundrums, it seems like we only have support for B agreeing with this answer. We don't have anything in B that would support "most scientific theories do not need any auxiliary premises".

  4. Unsupported Disagree Position11% picked this

    There is a logical asymmetry between positive and

    Do we have any way to say that Passage B thinks that "positive and negative evidence are logically symmetric"? No, that's an extreme position. And in fact, the final sentence shows some asymmetry, since Mercury's orbit was negative evidence for Newton (leading to its rejection) and positive evidence for Einstein (leading only to increased confidence).

  5. Unsupported Disagree Position7% picked this

    Scientific research involves generating bold theories and attempting to

    Do we have any way to say that Passage B thinks that "scientific research does not involve making bold theories and then attempting to refute them"? No, passage B never discusses anything like that.

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