Q16 - Taylor: Researchers at a local

[dan]

16. (D)
Question Type: Analyze Argument Structure
In this case, Taylor concludes that the researchers’ claim is suspect. Notice that Sandra never addresses the researchers’ claim. In fact, Sandra never addresses the research (verbal vs. nonverbal signals) mentioned by Taylor at all! Since neither the research nor the researchers’ claim is a point of overlap between the two participants, they can’t possibly disagree over these things. However, they do disagree over the supporting premise used by Taylor. He says: "... claims of such exactitude could never be established by science." Sandra addresses this head-on: "Many scientific disciplines obtain extremely precise results." Answer (D) correctly highlights this area of disagreement.

(A) is a half-scope answer. Sandra never addresses the research on nonverbal communication.
(B) is a half-scope answer. Sandra never addresses the research on nonverbal communication.
(C) is a half-scope answer. Sandra never addresses the research on nonverbal communication.
(E) is incorrect. Taylor states that scientific claims are suspect, not necessarily that they are false.


#officialexplanation

[wallace.rachael]

This question still confuses me. Why is it worded so that Sandra would disagree with Taylor about the statement? Wouldn't it be the other way around? Sandra would agree with the statement, right? I thought this was a trick answer.

[noah]

This question still confuses me. Why is it worded so that Sandra would disagree with Taylor about the statement? Wouldn't it be the other way around? Sandra would agree with the statement, right? I thought this was a trick answer.

I think you're over-thinking this (which is often a good sign for LSAT prep, but not for this moment!). It doesn't matter who will disagree with whom, either way they'll disagree.

Sandra would agree with the statement, but she'd disagree with Taylor, who would not agree with the statement.

[sharp.angela.m]

Yeah, I agree with Rachael--I was definitely looking for a statement that Sandra would DISAGREE with. I understand Noah's reply, but it does seem like the LSAT is being somewhat arbitrary here. I can imagine a similar question in which an incorrect answer-choice would be incorrect because we would be looking for a statement with which "Sandra" will disagree. Is this a little arbitrary, or am I just totally wrong...? It's been known to happen from time to time...

[noah]

If we look at the question stem--Sandra would disagree with Taylor
about which one of the following statements?--it's definitely asking for something they would disagree about.

It's possible a question could ask us for something one person would disagree with, but it wouldn't be part of a question in which we hear arguments that are at odds with one another. The question format we see here is pretty consistently what we see.

[ptewarie]

I am always a big advocate at carefully looking at quantifier words such as "always/ONLY/never/must" in this case look carefully,
Sandra claims:

"MANY scientific discliplines obtain extremely precise results".

A and B could be true if Sandra noted that ANY or ALL scientific disciplines obtain extremely precise results. In this case, we could infer that Sandra would disagree with Taylor who notes that such studies can never be measured precisely.

Since she says "many", which most often means "some", we cannot make an inference of whether the study Taylor puts forward falls within that spectrum.

Thus to dissect:
A) is wrong because Sandra's assertion does not address Taylor's research. Sandra saying that MANY scientific disciplines are precise, does not mean that the study Taylor mentions has to be precise.

B) Falls into the same category as A

D) is correct because, look again..lo and behold...what do we see..."SOME". So this is EXACTLY what we are looking for with Sandra. Now does Taylor talk about this?

If we go to the last sentence of his dialogue what does he say:
Claims of such exactitude could NEVER be established by science

ie: if exact claim -> NOT established SCIENCE
If established by science -> NOT exact claim

Sandra says:
Science SOMETIMES can establish exact claims/

Some: At least one, possibly ALL
NEVER: 0

So these two statements are at odds.

[redcobra21]

Hey guys

Thanks for the helpful discussion so far. I definitely get why (D) is correct, but just a question about (A). The way I read it, (A) can also be: "Research might ( i.e. could) reveal that 61 percent of the information..."

Isn't this a statement that Sandra would agree with and that Taylor would disagree with? Even though Sandra doesn't specifically mention the research, Sandra would still say that yes, the research COULD reveal such precision, while Taylor would say that no, such precision is never possible (i.e. it could not ever happen).

Am i missing something here? Thanks in advance

[noah]

Hey guys

Thanks for the helpful discussion so far. I definitely get why (D) is correct, but just a question about (A). The way I read it, (A) can also be: "Research might ( i.e. could) reveal that 61 percent of the information..."

Isn't this a statement that Sandra would agree with and that Taylor would disagree with? Even though Sandra doesn't specifically mention the research, Sandra would still say that yes, the research COULD reveal such precision, while Taylor would say that no, such precision is never possible (i.e. it could not ever happen).

Am i missing something here? Thanks in advance

Good question. The issue is that we don't know what Sandra thinks at all about this topic. She might agree with Taylor, but for a different reason--for example, because she thinks nonverbal signals are overrated.

[hnadgauda]

I understand that A, B, and C are wrong because Sandra doesn't address them. Why is E wrong?

I was also confused with the wording of the question: in these questions, are we supposed to locate a point that both parties have addressed and they would disagree about?

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

You're right.

A correct answer is something that both parties have addressed it (or we could somehow infer their take on it), and the two parties have differing opinions on it.

Does either party have an opinion on whether:
"Inherently suspect claims are usually false"?

Was one person arguing that "inherently suspect claims" are false more than 50% of the time, and the other person was arguing that those claims are false less than 50% of the time?

Not at all.

Neither person AT ANY POINT is talking about whether or not something is true or false.

They discuss whether claims are "suspect" or "shouldn't be doubted", but that's different. And there's nothing resembling any QUANTIFYING of truth/falsity or doubt/trust, as the "usually" and "majority" in (E) would require.

Since neither person even addressed the first half of (E), there's no need to analyze the rest of it.