Logical Reasoning

PT6 · S2 · Q15 J. J. Thomson, the discoverer of the

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

J. J. Thomson, the discoverer of the electron and a recipient of the Nobel Prize in physics, trained many physicists, among them seven Nobel Prize winners, 32 fellows of the Royal Society of London, and 83 professors of physics.

Conclusion

The skills needed for creative research can be taught and learned.

Evidence

J. J. Thomson, who discovered the electron and won a Nobel Prize, trained many successful physicists, including seven Nobel Prize winners, 32 fellows of the Royal Society, and 83 professors of physics.

Evaluate

There is a new concept in the conclusion, "skills needed for creative research", so we are assuming that in order for those students to achieve those accomplishments, they must have possessed the skills needed for creative research.

The argument is suggesting that because J. J. Thomson trained successful physicists, it proves that skills for creative research can be taught and learned. The burden of proof for "can be taught and learned" is super low. One data point would do it. Are we convinced that Thomson's successful students really learned from him?

In order for us to fight the conclusion, we'd have to be saying that even though they were trained by Thomson and showed themselves to be creative researchers, that's not because he taught them stuff / not because of what they learned from anyone.

Goal

Look for an answer addressing the missing link between "winning these awards" and "being a creative researcher". Or for an answer digging into whether Thomson's time with these students really involved teaching/learning that was relevant to their skills as creative researchers.

15.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. J. J. Thomson was an

    Out of Scope: International Reputation

    This is irrelevant to the argument about teaching creative research skills. The argument isn't concerned with Thomson's reputation or where his students came from, rather how his teachings instilled skills.

    1% picked this

  2. All the scientists trained by

    Too Strong: All Scientists

    The argument doesn't have to assume that all of Thomson's students were renowned for their creative research; it needs to show that at least some gained creative skills. This choice is unnecessarily strong; recognizing the significance of even a subset of his students is enough to support the conclusion.

    13% picked this

  3. Correct

    At least one of the

    Why this is right

    This choice directly supports the idea that the skills for creative research can be taught and learned in the time under Thomson, rather than his students already having those skills before they met him. If we negate this and "all of the eminent scientists trained by JJ were already creative researchers before coming to study with him", then we wouldn't be giving him any credit for teaching them the skills to be a creative researcher. They clearly didn't learn it from JJ, if they already possessed the skills before being trained by him.

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

    73% picked this

  4. Creative research in physics requires

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: other fields Too Strong: requires This argument has nothing to do with comparing physics to other fields. It's just about trying to show examples where the skills needed for creative research were taught/learned, and physics happens to be the type of example used.

    3% picked this

  5. Scientists who go on to

    Too Strong: often

    This answer is basically saying "this kind of things we just described with JJ and his eventually-famous students happens often". It doesn't matter whether it happens often or if JJ's experience was the only instance like it. As long as that experience is a valid example of creative research skills being taught / learned, then the author could prove her conclusion true.

    10% picked this

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