nbayar1212
Thanks Received: 22
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 78
Joined: October 07th, 2012
 
 
 

Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by nbayar1212 Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:43 pm

Whats the difference between A and D?
User avatar
 
noah
Thanks Received: 1192
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: February 11th, 2009
 
This post thanked 5 times.
 
 

Re: Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by noah Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:16 am

The argument begins by laying out a prediction, which we can smell will get debunked. In the second sentence, we learn of a consequence that would flow from that prediction proving true. This consequence is both that most people would be alive and that we'd likely be alive then too. Then the argument delivers the kill by pointing out the consequences have not occurred, so the prediction must be wrong.

Remember that we're not asked to identify the flaw in this argument - we're just assembling an outline of moves the argument makes.

(A) is tempting since it references something not occurring and thus a low probability. However, there's nothing here about a prediction nor about consequences not panning out. If we force the argument into (A), it'd be something like: since we haven't gone into space, we probably never will. That seems close, but it's missing the whole bit about setting up the consequence.

(B) is fancy but wrong. The conclusion--that the prediction won't happen--doesn't contradict any premise. Don't confuse debunking a theory with contradicting a premise. Plus, this sort of answer is always fishy--LSAT arguments, unless they're flawed--don't conclude against a premise. (Cue zombie voice: accept premises, doubt whether they definitively support the conclusion.)

(C) is silly and contradicted. The argument actually does assume that present facts tell us something about predictions.

(D) has it. The event that is likely on a given hypothesis is us being alive during the colonization period. The fact that this has not occurred--I'm not seeing any Starships out my window--means we probably won't ever colonize the stars. Sad.

(E) misses by a mile. Where's the prediction bashing? Who forgot the consequences?
 
zainrizvi
Thanks Received: 16
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 171
Joined: July 19th, 2011
 
 
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by zainrizvi Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:36 pm

Could you consider the fact that we are not live during this period an "event"? It seems like a bit of a stretch, now that I am going over my thought process
User avatar
 
noah
Thanks Received: 1192
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: February 11th, 2009
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by noah Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:51 pm

zainrizvi Wrote:Could you consider the fact that we are not live during this period an "event"? It seems like a bit of a stretch, now that I am going over my thought process

Odd it is, but apparently we can say that!

You'd think LSAT would have stuck with "phenomenon"!
 
ptewarie
Thanks Received: 36
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 38
Joined: October 01st, 2012
 
This post thanked 6 times.
 
 

Re: Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by ptewarie Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:22 pm

Best way to approach these problems is quickly identifying it to be a method of argument question before attacking the question.

Once you do that, few things should come to mind that are commonly employed techniques authors use to promote their argument:

1. Evidence
2. Counter evidence
3. Analogy
4. Hypothesis
5. Consequence
6. Disproving
7. Concluding

In addition, be in the look out for :
1. "some people claim".
2. "Critics"
3. "It is often said that"

Or anything that shows an opinion by another entity besides the author. Just like in reading comp, whenever another author is introduced, the author will most likely disagree by using any of the techniques in the list mentioned above.
( NOTE: THIS IS KEY!)

Look for these things and just like you would in parallel reasoning, abstract it in your mind.

Let's go through sentence-by-sentence:

1: Some people believe something( Hypothesis)
--> ( Bingo! I can probably predict author will disagree)

2: If so...( Consequence #1 of hypothesis)
3: Since...( Consequence #2 of hypothesis)

4. But because ...( Weakening of Consequence #2 )
5. odds are slim ( Unlikely that Hypothesis is likely)

So basically, the author shows that a hypothesis is unlikely to be true because one of its consequences is unlikely to be true.


Let's scan answer choice:
1. "because event has not occurred, event has low probability of occurring".

The first part works(consequence #2 has not occured), but the second sentence says that the "event"(consequence #2) has low prob. of occurring. This is wrong, because the author infers from Consequence #2 not occurring(event) that the original hypothesis is unlikely to occur.

This can be tricky, but if you truly dissected each sentence, it should be a breeze to see why this is false.

B. Just wrong. The conclusion( that hypothesis is unlikely to occur) does not contradict any of the premises of the argument accepts. As a matter of fact, it agrees with them.


C. "cannot ever be made". Hold on, the author said it can't be made in this case not "ever" in other instances.

D. "since event has not taken place that is taken to be likely for a given hypothesis has not occurred, the hypothesis is proably false.

Could not have said it better. This is a perfect match,


E. Noting that a consequence has not occurred is not the same as "making a prediction on established human tendencies". Also, this answer choice is too vague and does not even address any of the single strategies we previously mentioned( not even that the author disagrees with the hypothesis)
 
aradunakhor
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 24
Joined: June 07th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by aradunakhor Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:57 pm

Is the scientist's argument even valid?

My understanding of the first part of the argument, which I do follow, is this: suppose the galaxy is colonized by trillions of humans. The human population at that time is necessarily in the trillions. Considering that today's population is on the order of 10 billion, it's reasonable to then say that the hypothetical population in the trillions would represent the vast majority of the total number of humans to have ever lived.

However, the next step in the argument throws me off: the scientist argues 'Since we have no reason to think we are unrepresentative, the odds are overwhelming that we could be alive during this period.'

The part that says there's no reason to think we are unrepresentative doesn't seem right. To make things concrete, suppose the prediction is that the galaxy will be colonized when the human population is 100 trillion, and suppose that the total number of humans to have ever lived at that point is equal to 101 trillion. Then the scientist seems to be arguing that all humans from all time periods have the same probability of 100/101 in being alive when colonization occurs (not being unrepresentative I take to roughly mean have the same probability of being alive when colonization occurs).

This is definitely not true though, since the true probability is very much going to be dependent on the time period in which the given individual lived in.
 
hyewonkim89
Thanks Received: 5
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 122
Joined: December 17th, 2012
 
 
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by hyewonkim89 Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:49 am

noah Wrote:The argument begins by laying out a prediction, which we can smell will get debunked. In the second sentence, we learn of a consequence that would flow from that prediction proving true. This consequence is both that most people would be alive and that we'd likely be alive then too. Then the argument delivers the kill by pointing out the consequences have not occurred, so the prediction must be wrong.

Remember that we're not asked to identify the flaw in this argument - we're just assembling an outline of moves the argument makes.

(A) is tempting since it references something not occurring and thus a low probability. However, there's nothing here about a prediction nor about consequences not panning out. If we force the argument into (A), it'd be something like: since we haven't gone into space, we probably never will. That seems close, but it's missing the whole bit about setting up the consequence.

(B) is fancy but wrong. The conclusion--that the prediction won't happen--doesn't contradict any premise. Don't confuse debunking a theory with contradicting a premise. Plus, this sort of answer is always fishy--LSAT arguments, unless they're flawed--don't conclude against a premise. (Cue zombie voice: accept premises, doubt whether they definitively support the conclusion.)

(C) is silly and contradicted. The argument actually does assume that present facts tell us something about predictions.

(D) has it. The event that is likely on a given hypothesis is us being alive during the colonization period. The fact that this has not occurred--I'm not seeing any Starships out my window--means we probably won't ever colonize the stars. Sad.

(E) misses by a mile. Where's the prediction bashing? Who forgot the consequences?


Hi Noah,

Thanks for a great explanation!

But I'm still confused on one thing.

How is "because we are not alive during this period" in the last sentence same as "we have not been alive during this period(the consequences have not occurred)" in your explanation?
User avatar
 
noah
Thanks Received: 1192
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: February 11th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by noah Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:51 am

hyewonkim89 Wrote:Hi Noah,

Thanks for a great explanation!

But I'm still confused on one thing.

How is "because we are not alive during this period" in the last sentence same as "we have not been alive during this period(the consequences have not occurred)" in your explanation?

Happy to help!

I'm not really clear what you're asking. The two phrases you quoted seem to me to be referring to the same thing other than I explained in the second how it's tying back to the cause-effect/consequence that the argument sets up.
 
einuoa
Thanks Received: 11
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 51
Joined: January 05th, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by einuoa Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:30 pm

I picked E at the time because I misunderstood D, but I have another question on why E is wrong.

When the question is asking us "the scientist's argument proceeds by" is it asking us how the author gets to the conclusion of his argument? I think when I first interpreted this question, I thought we just have to identify one of the strategies used in the argument, hence why I chose E, because the first sentence is making a prediction into the far future.

So yes, my question is, for questions like these, should we try to encompass the whole argument that occurs in reaching the conclusion?

Thanks!
User avatar
 
maryadkins
Thanks Received: 641
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: March 23rd, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by maryadkins Sun Sep 07, 2014 2:52 pm

Good catch for yourself. Yes, proceeds by means pick what describes the argument as a whole. It does not mean just name one thing that happens.
 
chunsunb
Thanks Received: 1
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 23
Joined: May 23rd, 2014
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by chunsunb Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:14 pm

(A) would apply to a reasoning like:

The last two times I flipped a coin, it came up at heads. Thus, it must be that the chance of getting a tail is low.

In terms of this passage:

Colonization has not happened yet. Thus, colonization has a low probability of occuring.

The author's not saying that colonization of space, by its nature, has a low probability of occuring. That's why this choice is wrong.

It also oversimplifies the reasoning: he's not simply saying, "since A has not occured yet, A has a low chance pf occuring."
 
CaitlinC257
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 9
Joined: March 24th, 2018
 
 
 

Re: Q20 - Scientist: Given the human tendency

by CaitlinC257 Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:36 pm

I really don't understand your reasoning for why E is wrong. Who forgot the consequences? To what are you referring?

noah Wrote:The argument begins by laying out a prediction, which we can smell will get debunked. In the second sentence, we learn of a consequence that would flow from that prediction proving true. This consequence is both that most people would be alive and that we'd likely be alive then too. Then the argument delivers the kill by pointing out the consequences have not occurred, so the prediction must be wrong.

Remember that we're not asked to identify the flaw in this argument - we're just assembling an outline of moves the argument makes.

(A) is tempting since it references something not occurring and thus a low probability. However, there's nothing here about a prediction nor about consequences not panning out. If we force the argument into (A), it'd be something like: since we haven't gone into space, we probably never will. That seems close, but it's missing the whole bit about setting up the consequence.

(B) is fancy but wrong. The conclusion--that the prediction won't happen--doesn't contradict any premise. Don't confuse debunking a theory with contradicting a premise. Plus, this sort of answer is always fishy--LSAT arguments, unless they're flawed--don't conclude against a premise. (Cue zombie voice: accept premises, doubt whether they definitively support the conclusion.)

(C) is silly and contradicted. The argument actually does assume that present facts tell us something about predictions.

(D) has it. The event that is likely on a given hypothesis is us being alive during the colonization period. The fact that this has not occurred--I'm not seeing any Starships out my window--means we probably won't ever colonize the stars. Sad.

(E) misses by a mile. Where's the prediction bashing? Who forgot the consequences?