Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT152 S2 Q17 ExplanationScientist: A number of errors

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

TopicsParadox

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.

Stimulus

Scientist: A number of errors can plague a data-collection process. Since examining the collected data enables researchers to detect many of these errors, it is standard practice for researchers to correct collected data. However, in my field, there is a striking tendency for such corrections to favor Jones’s theory; that is, the closer than the uncorrected data to what Jones’s theory predicts.

What this question is testing

Paradox

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
17.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the tendency of corrections in the scientist’s field

Answer choices, explained

  1. No Impact5% picked this

    Researchers normally give data that is in line with a theory the same weight as data that conflicts with that theory when they are

    We don't care about whether a theory is going to get accepted or not. We just care about why corrected data points are generally drifting towards Jones's theory.

  2. Correct67% picked this

    Researchers in the scientist’s field give data that conflicts with Jones’s theory greater scrutiny than they give data that is

    Why this is right

    This points to a distinction that could be a causal difference-maker. If the people scanning for errors are giving more scrutiny to data points that conflict with Jones's theory, then they won't notice erroneous data points that align with Jones's theory but are actually bad data points. Those data points would have shifted away from Jones's theory. This is more or less describing confirmation bias skewing the results of a study. If a high school teacher thought that male students were more likely to plagiarize than were female students, he might give the essays from male students more scrutiny, in terms of checking online to see if they seemed to have plagiarized any of their papers. Since he doesn't expect the female students to plagiarize, he's not checking their papers as closely. Through this act of confirmation bias, he will reinforce this stereotype he has. He'll find more examples of males plagiarizing than females plagiarizing, since he's putting more effort into looking for trouble with males' papers. Similarly, if these researchers already implicitly assume J's theory is right, they'll have some confirmation bias. They won't bother checking the the data points that align with Jones's theory, because they're assuming those data points are probably correct. Meanwhile, they'll expend effort looking at data points that diverge from Jones's theory, so they'll catch more offenders (erroneous data points).

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

  3. Unclear Impact18% picked this

    Researchers in the scientist’s field are more likely to pursue lines of research that they expect will favor theories they accept than

    Someone might have liked this if they were looking for an answer that said, "the corrected data points shift towards Jones's theory, because Jones's theory is right". This is more like, "Some lines of research will favor Jones's theory. These researchers accept Jones's theory, so they pursue flattering lines of research. Thus, since Jones's theory is 'right' for these lines of research, corrections will usually bring data points closer to Jones's predictions." There's a lot of stretching for us to try to turn this answer into that story. The biggest gap is that we have no idea whether any researchers in this field favor Jones's theory, and without knowing that we can't possibly get this answer to go anywhere.

  4. Very Weak6% picked this

    Even if researchers fail to detect errors in a data-collection process when they examine data that they collected, that does not guarantee

    "Even if ... that does not guarantee" is language that shows there is a possibility for at least one thing. Even if they fail to detect errors, it is possible that at least one error exists. "At least one" strength of language (some, sometimes, not all, can, may, might, need not) is almost never correct on Strengthen / Weaken / Paradox. This answer has no power to make a distinction between data points that do / don't align with Jones's predictions.

  5. No Impact4% picked this

    Researchers in the scientist’s field have formulated several other theories that attempt to explain the same range of phenomena that

    The fact that Jones's theory is not the only theory doesn't change anything, and it doesn't explain why corrected data points are mainly moving in the direction of aligning more closely with Jones's theory.

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