Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT144 S1 P4 Q27 Explanation

Karl Popper

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

TopicsAnalogyScience

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

Analogy

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
27.

Which one of the following scientific episodes is most analogous to the discovery of Neptune, as that episode is

Answer choices

  1. Weak Match6% picked this

    Galileo proposed that ocean tides are the result of Earth's motion in its orbit around the sun. But Galileo's theory of tides falsely predicted

    We have a prediction that turned out wrong, but that's it. We predicted X, based on Y. The prediction didn't seem right. Maybe Y is wrong, or maybe we were wrong about Z? We then discover Z. There's no part of this answer that involves "Once we found out Galileo's prediction was wrong, we discovered this other thing."

  2. Bad Match8% picked this

    By observing "variable stars"—stars that vary in brightness—in Andromeda, Edwin Hubble discovered that Andromeda is actually a galaxy in its own right. This enabled

    We want something like - We thought X was Y, but our measurements said we were wrong. That led us to discover Z, which is why our measurements were wrong. This sounds more like - We thought X was Y, but really it's Z. That allowed us to settle a debate.

  3. Bad Match13% picked this

    Walter Alvarez postulated that an asteroid impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. He based this on observing high levels of the mineral iridium

    This answer involves a prediction that is supported by multiples lines of evidence (high iridium in rock samples as well as a large impact crater). There's no conflict between prediction and data. The Neptune discovery involved a prediction (about Uranus) that was at odds with observed data, which led to us discovering Neptune.

  4. Bad Match5% picked this

    Bernard Brunhes discovered rocks that were magnetized in a direction opposite to that of the present-day magnetic field. He concluded that Earth's magnetic field

    We want something like - We thought X was Y, but our measurements said we were wrong. That led us to discover Z, which is why our measurements were wrong. This sounds more like - We discovered an X that was unlike present day X. So we concluded that X has changed over time.

  5. Correct69% picked this

    When a neutron decays into a proton and an electron, the combined energies of the two particles is less than the energy of the

    Why this is right

    We wanted something like this: We predicted X, based on Y. The prediction didn't seem right. Maybe Y is wrong, or maybe we were wrong about Z? We then discover Z. We thought (because of the law of conservation of energy) that any physical or chemical process neither adds nor subtracts energy from the universe. But then we measured what happens when a neutron decays, and the combined energies of the byproducts is less than the original. Does that mean that the law of conservation of energy is wrong? Maybe, but maybe our assumption that neutrons break down only into a proton and an electron is wrong. Asking this question led Pauli to say, "there must be some other particle that we're failing to account for" and this led to the discovery of this 3rd particle.

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

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