Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S2 · Q12 Scientist: Some pundits claim

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • 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

Start practicing free

Scientist: Some pundits claim that the public is afraid of scientists.

Conclusion

This isn't true. rephrase: The public is not afraid of scientists.

Evidence

I've been a scientist for decades, and I've never met anyone who is afraid of scientists.

Evaluate

In a boring Linking sense, the author's argument assumes that, .

But that doesn't sound too much like a realistic answer, so we should consider potential Objections to the argument.

This is an appeal to a sample of personal experience, and the author's data sample might be small, unrepresentative, or inaccurate.

Maybe this scientist is in the lab all the time, so they've met very few people over the past few decades. Maybe the people they do meet are atypically within the world of science, and so they are atypically unafraid of scientists.

Or maybe the people she's been meeting are afraid of scientists, but since she's a scientist they're too afraid of her to admit to her that they're afraid of her.

Goal

Let's look for an answer linking the Premise to the Conclusion or for an answer ruling out one of our objections (or any other objection).

e.g. - The scientist does not meet only a handful of people each decade. - The people the scientist met are not atypically comfortable around scientists. - The people the scientist met were not afraid of scientists but unwilling to admit as much.

12.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the scientist's argument?

  1. Alleged scientific claims may be

    Out of Scope: manipulate

    The author doesn't need to assume that scientific claims may manipulate people. That concept is totally unmentioned thus far. If we negate this and say, "Hey, author -- scientific claims can't be used to manipulate people", would that hurt the argument? Not at all. The author would be like, "Yeah, I agree. Scientific claims can't manipulate people. Maybe that's part of why the public isn't afraid of scientists."

    0% picked this

  2. If a person understood what

    Out of Scope: really about

    The notion of "what science is really about" vs. "what people think it's about" was not discussed. The author hasn't committed to any position on there even being a difference between what people think science is about and what it's really about. This out of scope concept is our easiest way to get rid of this answer. Only keep reading this explanation if you were tempted by this answer. Some people might find this answer tempting as a potential inference. After all, this author thinks that the public currently is not afraid of scientists. So wouldn't the author think that if the public were eating meatloaf, they wouldn't be afraid of scientists? If tomorrow is a Tuesday, then the public would not be afraid of scientists. If they knew what science was really about, then the public would not be afraid of scientists. Since the author believes the outcome of this conditional, does it even matter what the trigger is? Won't the author believe the outcome no matter what? No, not necessarily. I could say "most Americans enjoy eating meat". Am I assuming that, "if Americans knew where their meat came from, they would enjoy eating meat"? No, I'm not. I think most Americans enjoy eating meat in part because they don't know where their meat comes from. Similarly, this author could believe that people currently aren't afraid of scientists, in part because they don't know what science is really all about (maybe the truth is actually terrifying but the current misconception is not).

    1% picked this

  3. People may be apprehensive about

    Out of Scope: technological developments

    The author never talks about technological developments, so she hasn't committed to any views regarding that subject. It wouldn't change or hurt the author's argument if people are apprehensive about new tech or aren't. She's only arguing they're not afraid of scientists, which wouldn't be affected one way or the other.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    If the public were afraid

    Why this is right

    If we ever see the Conclusion as part of the trigger, then the answer is automatically wrong. For example, if an answer said, (A) If the public is unafraid of scientists, then ... We'd immediately eliminate it. The conclusion is supposed to be on the right side (the outcome) of a conditional reasoning move. We want to see premise ? conclusion However, when you contrapose that reasoning move (as so many correct answers do), you get: not conclusion ? not premise So seeing the negation of the conclusion in the trigger is a great sign. That's what we're seeing here. The answer says, if public is afraid over several decades of scientists ? a scientist would meet someone afraid of sci's And the contrapositive of this looks just like the Premise ? Conclusion move of the argument! If over several decades public is not a scientist has not met ? afraid of someone afraid of sci's scientists

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

    96% picked this

  5. Anyone who claims to be

    Illegal Negation

    One of our objections was, "Hey, author -- what if these people you meet that say they're not afraid of scientists are lying, and they actually are afraid of scientists". So the author, to rule out that objection, has to be assuming, "If someone claims they're not afraid of scientists, then we should believe that they are actually not afraid of scientists". This answer is giving us an illegal negation of that, saying, "if someone claims they are afraid of scientists, then we should believe that they actually are afraid." If we negate this, we're saying to the author that "some people who say they're afraid of scientists aren't actually afraid." That doesn't hurt the argument. That actually strengthens the conclusion.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
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