Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S4 · Q24 A theory cannot properly

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

A theory cannot properly be regarded as empirical unless there is some conceivable observation that, if the theory were false, would refute it.

Principle

"unless" = put the negated version of this idea on the Left side of the arrow. (i.e. "if-not")

If it's not the case that there is some conceivable observation that would refute it, if the theory were wrong, then a theory can't properly be regarded as empirical.

No conceivable observation → can't consider that could refute a theory the theory to be empirical

Goal

If any of these answers are concluding, "Thus, it is empirical", we can instantly throw them out. Principles can only prove what's on the right side of the arrow.

If an answer is concluding "this isn't empirical" then we just want to see the answer establish that there's no conceivable observation that could falsify a certain theory.

24.

The principle above most helps to justify which one of the following?

  1. Since no one was present

    Weak Trigger Match

    Does saying that "no one was present at the origin of the universe" establish that "there is no conceivable observation that could refute the Big Bang theory"? No. Say we have an empirical theory that "Jeff killed Samantha at an Applebee's last weekend". If no one was present at that Applebee's, does that mean there's no conceivable observation that could refute our theory? Of course not. Samantha might walk up to us and say, "What are you guys talking about?" and our observation of her would refute this theory.

    11% picked this

  2. Since set theory is not

    Reversal

    This goes from the right side of our Principle to the left side. No conceivable observation → can't consider that could refute a theory the theory to be empirical It's saying "if theory X isn't empirical, then that means that there's no conceivable observation that could refute it".

    7% picked this

  3. Correct

    Psychoanalysis is such a flexible

    Why this is right

    Do we establish that a theory could not be conceivably refuted by observation? Yes — no conceivable observation could show it to be false. Do we then conclude that the theory isn't empirical? Yes.

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

    55% picked this

  4. There are conceivable observations that

    Opposite

    This performs an illegal opposite (negation) of our Principle. We mentioned before that we can get rid of any answer concluding that theory is empirical. No conceivable observation → can't consider that could refute a theory the theory to be empirical This answer choice says "if there is a conceivable observation that could refute, then it is empirical"

    20% picked this

  5. The theory of relativity must

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This concludes that a theory "must be true", but this principle doesn't give us any power to derive that conclusion. We can either derive that "not an empirical theory" or we can derive that "there is some conceivable observation that would refute".

    7% 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