Winston: The rules for awarding

Answer choices

1. A

   No Support Person 13% picked this

   the rules that govern the awarding of Nobel Prizes should be changed so that prizes can be

   Since Winston doesn't mention the "rules say no dead people" provision, we don't know how he would feel about this.

   3%
2. B

   Out of Scope: other Nobel Prizes26% picked this

   the rules that govern the awarding of Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines should be different from the rules

   Their statements are only about Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines, so we have no idea how either person feels about rules for other Nobel Prizes.

   26%
3. C

   Too Strong for Either4% picked this

   Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines should not be given in recognition of

   Although both parties seem to be pointing out some potential unfairness with the Nobel rules, neither one is clearly agitating for this change -- barring Nobel prizes from being awarded for results. It seems more likely that W would like the rules changed so that more than 3 people can be awarded for results and that S would like the rules changed so that dead people can receive the award posthumously.

   4%
4. D

   Out of Scope: subjective8% picked this

   the evaluation of individual achievement in science is a highly

   While both parties seem to be whining about unfair Nobel rules, neither of them is complaining about the awards process being highly subjective. They're both complaining about rules that are very objective: -- counting the number of recipients to see whether it's more than 3 -- checking whether the potential recipient is dead

   8%
5. E

   Correct60% picked this

   Nobel Prizes are inaccurate indicators of scientists' contributions to

   Why this is right

   This answer is terribly written, but it wins by the standard of best available. It's certainly similar in sentiment to what we were looking for, "the Nobel rules unfairly exclude some deserving people from getting a Nobel". But it feels like a backwards version of what we want. This answer sounds like "having a Nobel doesn't mean (doesn't accurately indicate) that you deserved one for your contribution". However, that's not what they were saying. They were saying, "not getting a Nobel doesn't mean you didn't deserve one for your contribution." Apparently LSAT was hoping we would hear this answer in a fuzzier way, like, "Whether you have or lack a Nobel is not an accurate indicator of your contributions to science." But it's pretty obnoxiously sloppy on their part. Again, keep that mantra of "best available" in your head. Occasionally, you may even have to think, "Sigh. This question is technically broken, but what do I think the test writers wanted the credited response to be?"

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

   60%