Logical Reasoning

PT6 · S3 · Q22 The true scientific significance of

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

The true scientific significance of a group of unusual fossils discovered by the paleontologist Charles Walcott is more likely to be reflected in a recent classification than it was in Walcott’s own classification.

Conclusion

The true scientific significance the fossils discovered by Walcott is more likely to be reflected in a recent classification than it was in Walcott’s own classification.

Intermediate Conclusion (thus)

Walcott's classifications are unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true.

Evidence (after all)

Walcott was a prominent member of the scientific establishment.

Evaluate

There seem to be a number of objections we could levy at this argument. Let's focus on each of the two reasoning moves.

Given that ... W is a prominent member of the scientific establishment, Do we have to accept that ... The way he would classify the fossils he found would just confirm what established science accepts as true?

Of course not. Maybe Walcott is a rebel, who goes against the establishment, despite working for it. Maybe Walcott is a scientist who is more than willing to change his understanding of the world if new evidence challenges old beliefs (i.e. maybe these new fossils suggested something that went against established science, and Walcott is happy to discard an established belief if it no longer matches evidence).

The argument seems to assume that (is that equivocating on the meaning of the word "establishment"?)

How about the second reasoning move (here, we have to implicitly accept the intermediate conclusion as fact, in order to think about the move):

Given that ... Walcott would have classified the fossils in accord with established science, Do we have to accept that ... the true significance of the fossils is more likely reflected by this other classification, not Walcott's?

Of course not. First of all, who said the other classification is even different? The author is assuming that this recent classification didn't also just go with established science. Supposing that this recent classification is different, what reason has the author offered for thinking it's better or more likely to reveal the true significance.

Goal

Since there are multiple conclusions and multiple objections, it's hard to settle on a precise prediction. But the correct answer should either help us argue that or argue that .

22.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a questionable technique used in the argument?

  1. Correct

    It draws conclusions about the

    Why this is right

    Since this answer takes the form of "concludes X from evidence about Y", our customary reaction would be to see if X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Here, it says that we draw multiple conclusions: 1. the merit of W's position (his classification) 2. the content of W's position (how he classified it) The main conclusion is about the merit of W's position, saying that it's less likely to reveal the true significance than is some other interpretation. And the intermediate conclusion is about the content of W's position, assuming that the way W classified it is the same as how established science would classify it. And the evidence is about who Walcott is (i.e. the source of the position). Simply because he's a prominent member of the scientific community, our author thinks she automatically knows how he classified these fossils and that his classification is not as good as someone else's. This answer is a variation on the famous Ad Hominem flaw, where an author dismisses someone's view because of who they are, not by addressing the ideas themselves.

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

    70% picked this

  2. It cites two pieces of

    Bad Evidence Match

    There's really only one piece of evidence cited, the fact that Walcott was a prominent member of the scientific establishment. And it's hard for us to say that such evidence is both questionable and unverifiable. It seems like we could ask other scientists to verify whether or not Walcott was a prominent member of the establishment. This answer choice would be a very unlikely correct answer ever, since Flaw questions are testing reasoning flaws, and this answer is just criticizing the evidence itself, not the reasoning.

    5% picked this

  3. It bases a conclusion on

    Bad Evidence Match

    There's really only one premise in this argument, (Walcott was a prominent member of the scientific establishment). Even if we counted the intermediate conclusion as a second premise, it certainly does not contradict the premise at all. This answer alludes to two famous flaws, Self-Contradiction and Equivocation (using vague terms or using a term in two different ways).

    12% picked this

  4. It attempts to establish the

    Not Unproven vs. Proven False

    This alludes to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Unproven vs. Proven False. Does our author's conclusion attempt to "establish the validity of a claim"? Not really. Our author is saying that the recent classification is probably better than Walcott's, so if we wanted to stretch this, we could say that our author is establishing the validity of "recent classification is better". According to this answer, the evidence took on the opposite claim "the recent classification is not better" and tried to deny the truth of that. The evidence had nothing to do with the recent classification, so we know this doesn't match.

    10% picked this

  5. It analyzes the past on

    Out of Scope: social / political categories

    It analyzes the past? No. We can stop there. It just mentions that Walcott was a prominent member of the scientific establishment. That's not analyzing the past based on certain social and political categories.

    3% 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