Q22 - Science writer: Scientists' astounding success

[shirando21]

can anyone go through this question?

I picked D...

[bbirdwell]

Yikes! Tough one!

1. science success --> public FALSELY believe science can solve ANY problem

2. problems scientists solve --> TYPICALLY selected by scientists

3. prblm selected by others --> guided by scientists to formulate scientifically feasible

4. pblm NOT formulated that way --> scientists ALMOST NEVER asked to solve


Lots of possibilities here. There are connections to be made, perhaps contrapositives to be used, and maybe even some distinctions between "scientists" and "science" to be made?? Whoa. Instead of getting too deep into that, let's take what we have clearly noted above and proceed to the choices with caution!

One thing you might notice is that, unlike some inference questions, this one is actually an argument. It's not just a list of facts -- there is a claim being made. This is why the question says "most strongly supports" rather than "must be true" -- this allows the test-writer to open up the scope of correct answer choices. The correct choice doesn't have to be 100% provable, and it will likely involve the CLAIM made in the argument and not just the facts.

(A) we cannot begin an if/then statement with "if can be formulated..." Rather, we can only end with it (see #3 and #4 above)

(B) see #2 above. The only thing we know about problems that scientists can solve is that most of them are selected by scientists.

(D) If anything, this is actually contradicted by the passage. Most of the problems that scientists solve are chosen by scientists. The remainder are selected by politicians.

However, for all we know, even problems that the scientists choose for themselves are problems that politicians "want solved." In other words, there could be a an important word shift here from problems that politicians "select" and problems that politicians "want solved."

These two reasons are enough to eliminate (D).

(E) ONLY reason? Close, but not quite -- remember #3 above: sometimes the scientists solve problems that they didn't select.

Now, a lot of folks probably eliminate (C) because it seems like we can't predict anything about the scientists success rate simply based on the facts presented. This is where that claim from the argument, and it's connection to the evidence, come in:

scientist's success rate causes FALSE beliefs that science can solve any problem.

And the evidence for this claim is that scientists don't just work on any ole problem: they only work problems that they either select or help formulate.


Now, if you say "I think you overestimated Oregon's offense. They've only played against poor defensive lines." You are suggesting that, if Oregon had played against better defensive lines, I would have a different evaluation of their offense. See the similarity?

This whole pattern/structure of reasoning leads to (C), which is essentially a loose-ish paraphrase of the conclusion itself .

"If scientists didn't get to choose the problems they work on --> they would have a lower success rate."

Sometimes these things are easier to talk about than type about. Hope that helps

[shirando21]

right, typically is the important word.

Thank you.

[ccheng]

Thanks for the great answer, bbirdwell.
I have one quick question and hope you (or any instructor) could help.

Since we consider (A) to be a reverse logic of statement #4, it means (A) is a conditional logic. However, (C) is a paraphrase of causal statement #1 and statement #2 although it is an "if" statement. In other words, (C) is not a conditional logic because its tone is very soft ("would probably").

My question is to what extend we can say an "if" statement a conditional logic. Comparing (A) and (C):
(A): "if ... can be ..., ... will usually ..."
(C): "if ... were ..., ... would probably ..."

Is the word "will" in (A) that makes it a conditional logic even though the sufficient part has "can be" which is soft?

Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

I wouldn't consider either (A) or (C) conditional, but they are either both conditional or neither is.

When we say,
IF Brady plays, THEN the Patriots will probably win.

Do we have a universal, a guarantee, a requirement?

I would say NO, the way I like to intuitively think about conditionals.

There's no guarantee, because whether Brady plays or doesn't play, you don't know whether the Patriots will win or lose.

BUT -- someone else could say, no that IS a conditional:

IF Brady plays, then I have certainty that the Patriots winning percentage is higher than 50%.

So if you like my "it's only conditional if we're getting binary ideas on both sides", then neither (A) nor (C) would be conditional.

If you're comfortable with the idea of saying "we're certain that there's a more than 50% chance", then both (A) and (C) are conditionals.

Neither provides certainty. They both prove something is probable.

"Can be formulated" simply means POSSIBLE vs. IMPOSSIBLE. That's binary.

"Scientists will USUALLY" in (A) and "Scientists would probably" in (C) make them non-conditional in my book.

I think the filter we apply to these two answers has less to do with conditional logic and more just to do with your overall gut sense of what was being talked about.

(A) is saying that ANY problem that can be possibly formulated as to make scientific solution feasible will usually be given to scientists.

Well that means that all the arithmetic drills in elementary school (these are problems that can be formulated scientifically) are in that pool of problems that will USUALLY be given to scientists.

What we heard was that:
IF scientists are gonna take it on --> it can be formulated scientifically
(not the other way around)

The general supportability of (C) is:

When they have told us that
X is the reason for Y
it's pretty safe to say
If X had not happened, Y might not have.

[ganbayou]

Hi,
just want to make sure...
In C, it says "less narrow" does this mean "broad" or "Not narrow"?
Thank you!

[tommywallach]

It means "broader."

Like, "If you were less friendly, you'd be happier" means "If you were more unfriendly, you'd be happier."

-t

[livia.maas]

I eliminated all the other answers until it came between (B) and (C). I incorrectly picked (B).

I didn't pick (C) because the stimulus said that scientists picked their own problems, and formulated them in such a way as to make "scientific solutions feasible." Therefore, even if they had broader grounds for selecting their research problems, I reasoned they'd still pick problems that were feasible to solve. That way, their success rate would not decrease.

I understand why (B) is wrong, but I'm not fully comfortable with (C) either.

Help?

[greenapples]

I incorrectly chose D. On my second try, I incorrectly chose B. I chose B because I know from the background info that scientists have astonishing success rate with research problems, and scientists are almost never asked to solve problems that are not subject to formulation (allows scientists to make scientific solutions feasible). I thought this guarantees B, that any problem a scientist can solve can be formulated in such a way as to make a scientific solution feasible (aka solution)

Is B wrong because it is 1) too extreme, since the background info only says "astounding success rate" (not 100%), and 2) a bit out of scope since it's not about formulating a problem scientist can solve as to make a scientific solution feasible.

As for my stab at C, is it correct because if the grounds for selecting problems were less narrow (not selected by scientists themselves, or selected by politicians or business leaders, or asked to solve a problem that is NOT subject to such formulation), we can imply that scientists may have a lower chance?

Thx

[seychelles1718]

Can anyone help me figure out why B is wrong?
Is B wrong because the only thing we know about "formulating in such a way as to make a scientific solution feasible" is that's what scientists do when the problems are selected by politicians/business leaders?
In other words, when problems are instead selected scientists themselves, is it totally possible that the problems CANNOT be formulated in such way but still solvable by scientists?

[snoopy]

Can anyone help me figure out why B is wrong?
Is B wrong because the only thing we know about "formulating in such a way as to make a scientific solution feasible" is that's what scientists do when the problems are selected by politicians/business leaders?
In other words, when problems are instead selected scientists themselves, is it totally possible that the problems CANNOT be formulated in such way but still solvable by scientists?

Yes. B is wrong because saying any problem that a scientist can solve can be formulated to make the solution feasible. Too extreme to say ANY problem a scientist can solve can be formulated to have a feasible solution. You're saying that, hm, maybe a scientist picks a problem with a solution that cannot be formulated in a feasible way.

What helped me was imagining myself as a geneticist. I can do some research and genetically modify some plants to have them resistant to diseases. Feasible solutions. But, when a politician asks me to come up with a solution that addresses insecticides, GMOs, and groundwater issues, I'm helping a politician make sense of the basics and consequences of certain topics and issues. I am not asked to solve those particular issues. I'm just a subject matter expert.