Logical Reasoning

PT7 · S1 · Q24 Many major scientific discoveries 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

Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chance discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought.

Conclusion (therefore)

Serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery under current circumstances.

Evidence

Scientific research is now so costly that it relies heavily on large grants. These grants require investigators to give sponsors clear projections about research outcomes, leading investigators to ignore findings not directly related to the funded research.

Evaluate

Our author argues that serendipity is at odds with the structured nature of scientific research today, particularly because of the reliance on large grants. In essence, the argument hinges on the idea that serendipity - or unexpected findings - cannot easily coexist with the demand for clear, predictable research outcomes.

We could think about this argument as containing a Missing Link type assumption:

Alternatively, we can think about it as aiming to rule out potential objections:

Goal

Look for an assumption stating that for serendipity to play a role, it must be directly connected to the funded study's outcomes or an answer ruling out the idea that serendipitous findings can happen under present research conditions.

24.

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

  1. Correct

    Only findings that an investigator

    Why this is right

    Since this is conditional, our default response is to just look at the reasoning move and ask whether our author did such a thing. This is saying, "If a finding directly bears on the research, then it is a finding the investigator purposely seeks". The argument established that based on how grants work, investigators will only be looking at stuff that directly bears on their research (they'll ignore anything else). Because they're only looking at stuff that directly bears, the author thinks they won't make serendipitous discoveries (which were defined as findings that are not purposely sought). So, yes, this does match the reasoning move from, "If they only look at what directly bears, then there will be no serendipitous discovery", because it's saying "the stuff that directly bears will be stuff the investigator purposely sought (not accidental stuff discovered along the way)". Negating conditional ideas is not a great tactic for most students, but if we did, we'd be saying "Hey, sometimes findings that weren't purposely sought can still directly bear on the research", which opens up the door to the idea that serendipity could still happen even if you're restricted to only looking at stuff that directly bears on the research.

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

    70% picked this

  2. In the past few scientific

    Out of Scope: the past

    This argument is only what's possible under present circumstances. What happened in the past is irrelevant.

    12% picked this

  3. Dependence on large grants is

    Out of Scope: personally prefer

    (C) touches on investigators' personal preferences, but this argument doesn't address whether research is aligned with personal preferences. It's only about whether research would have the freedom to pursue serendipitous discoveries made along the way.

    10% picked this

  4. All scientific investigators who provide

    Too Strong: All

    The argument doesn't care if 100% vs. 99% vs. 20% of clearly stated grant proposals get funding. This is a very extreme idea, and there's no reason the author needs to believe that every single scientist with a good grant proposal gets at least some money.

    7% picked this

  5. In general the most valuable

    Too Strong: the most valuable

    Nothing in the argument is using comparative language to rank the value of discoveries.

    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