Q18 - A large survey of scientists found that almost

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Scientists accept Wang's Law and know the results of the BE Experiment. Since these two contradict this other hypothesis, scientists must not believe the M hypo.

Answer Anticipation:
A lot of language about what scientists believe should lead us in the direction of considering a Perception vs. Reality flaw. Checking the language, there's a subtle shift between what we're told about W's Law (scientists accept it) and the BE Experiment (scientists know the results). The former is definitive as to their belief, but the latter isn't - one can know the results of an experiment without accepting them. If the scientists know of but don't accept these results, they could still accept the M Hypo.

Additionally, the argument jumps between the scientists knowing these things, and the contradiction existing. It's possible scientists know of the results, but don't know that the combination of these two other laws contradict the Minsk Hypo. If that's the case, then they wouldn't necessarily reject the Hypo.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Bingo. This is the second flaw discussed. For this question, even if you didn't spot both flaws, you should have considered any answer that discussed what the scientists knew/were aware of. If the scientists aren't aware of the contradiction (the negation), they might not reject the Hypo.

(B) Degree (too strong). The argument doesn't require the two groups to overlap exactly, as long as the overlap accounts for most of the scientists.

(C) Out of scope. The argument only requires the scientists are aware of the results, not of how the results were obtained.

(D) Out of scope. The conclusion is about the scientists surveyed, not all scientists. This answer would be correct if the conclusion jumped to a statement about overall scientific consensus.

(E) Out of scope. This argument is about the perception of scientists, so it doesn't matter what the truth of the situation is.

Takeaway/Pattern: When an argument has a lot of language about what someone believes/thinks/opines/holds/says, there's a good chance the flaw will be a jump between perception and reality. For another example of a similar argument, check out PT31, S2, Q21.

#officialexplanation

[LolaC289]

Additionally, the argument jumps between the scientists knowing these things, and the contradiction existing. It's possible scientists know of the results, but don't know that the combination of these two other laws contradict the Minsk Hypo. If that's the case, then they wouldn't necessarily reject the Hypo.

So... we must REJECT something KNOWING / ADMITTING that we are rejecting it?

If the scenario changed to these scientists accept both Wang's law and the BE experiment result (i.e, the first gap removed), but still DON'T KNOW the combination contradicts the Minsk Hypothesis, can we say they reject the Minsk Hypothesis then? (Personally I think so, they are in fact rejecting it by accepting something contradicting it. Correct? )

I am not sure if the second gap you mentioned is really a gap.

[EmilyL849]

Hi, Gurus.

So my interpretation of the core is

People accept W's law and know BE's result.
Because of the combo of W's law and BE results is in contradiction to M's hypothesis, most of the scientists surveyed would reject M's.

I thought the most important gap was jumping from the contradiction to rejection of M's hypothesis. (This is the first gap that is mentioned by the guru)
It could be that people know BE's result as invalid. Knowing something is not the same as knowing it as valid. So, the combo's contradiction would not necessarily lead to the rejection, because combo itself could be false.

Also, another gap related to that is accepting W's law necessarily means you will reject something opposite.
Just because you accept something now does not mean you will not accept something new, once your previous acceptance is shown to be false. We have seen a plenty of scientific laws being replaced.
In this case, it could be that the contradiction legitimately invalided W's law and scientists now accept something new.
With this reasoning, I thought the assumption was "The acceptance of W's law now leads to the rejection of another hypothesis." Although I did not like answer choice (E), cuz it says "in fact shown" to be true (too strong), I thought it had to that W's law is true. If not, how can a mere acceptance of one law lead to the rejection of another?
I did not see (A) as necessary. Whether or not scientists know of the contradiction is unnecessary, because the argument is based on "once they do become aware, they will reject M's hypothesis".

I went back and reread the argument, and it seems like what it is saying that "since scientists accept W's law NOW, they reject the M's hypothesis NOW due to the contradiction". If that's the case, my second point would be moot.

I am confused as to how (A) necessary...

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, it seems like your confusion on this one stems from verb tense (and thus the scope of the argument).

It is only about what is currently the case for those scientists surveyed.

Sure, one day these scientists may come to reject Wang's Law, but they currently accept it.
And accepting a theory does not require that the theory has been shown to be true.

f.e. Almost all scientists accept that our current climate change is largely driven by human activities relating to the release of CO2, but has that been "shown to be true"? As you pointed out, that's loaded language. It has been empirically supported beyond what most scientists would consider a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's been shown to be true.

Similarly, most particle physicists accepted the idea of the Higgs boson long before it was "shown to be true" by the CERN particle accelerator.

If the argument were future-looking, then you could definitely argue for an amended version of (E) like ...
E) Wang's Law will not soon be falsified and replaced by some other theory that is compatible with MH.

I would take issue with this part of your reasoning:
Also, another gap related to that is accepting W's law necessarily means you will reject something opposite.


Again, if we restrict the tense to NOW, I think that accepting that "X is true" means you will reject that "X is false". That's not an assumption. That's just self-justifying paraphrase of what it means to accept something, in the truth-value context of "accepting".

If Leslie accepts that "Avengers is a popular movie", then we know she would reject the claim that "Avengers is not a popular movie". Yes, we are assuming that Leslie is a rational being who doesn't accept contradictory ideas. That is an assumption, but not one LSAT would ever test.

Sometimes we catch ourselves naming an 'assumption', based on some perceived term shift, only to decide that the shift in question is pretty darn legal.

Like I might hear myself saying, "Well this is assuming that just because cheesecake is the tastiest dessert option at the restaurant that the banana split on the menu isn't as delicious." And then I would think, 'hmmm, actually, it seems pretty to safe to say that something called the tastiest is more delicious than anything else ... this problem must be going for something else'.

When you do Necessary Assumption, are you using the Negation Test?

Remember that the task of Necessary Assumption could be (though doesn't always need to be) construed as:
"Which answer, if negated, most weakens"

Which would weaken this argument more?
A) most of the scientists surveyed are not aware that BE + WL would contradict MH.

E) WL has not been proven true yet.

To (E), the author could just say, "Yeah, I know, but almost all the scientists surveyed said they accept it, so it's 'true' in THEIR minds, and I'm just arguing about what's in their minds."

To (A), the author doesn't have a good rebuttal. "Yeah, I know ... but even though most scientists don't realize that WL + BE would contradict MH, they are still rejecting MH based on that?"

This flaw has shown up a handful of times: essentially an author is trying to tie together the logic of people's thoughts without knowing whether they're aware of certain connective tissue you would need.

for example:
George knows that there are two cupcakes left. Two is the smallest prime number. Thus, George knows that the number of cupcakes left is equal to the smallest prime number.

This is flawed because we don't know if George knows that "2 is the smallest prime".

another example:
Bob knows that Lois Lane and Clark Kent are coworkers. Bob also knows that Lois Lane was on a date last night with Superman. Therefore, Bob knows that Lois Lane was on a date last night with one of her coworkers.

This is flawed because we don't know if Bob knows that "Clark Kent = Superman"

Here are some follow-ups if you want more examples of this flaw.
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t5636.html

https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t1024.html

[EmilyL849]

Thank you Patrick!

Your explanation makes things clear now.

Yes, I do apply the negation test for necessary assumption questions. In this case, I interpreted the conclusion as a prediction, not a judgment NOW.

My interpretation was ‘since the BE’s results together with the W’s law contradict M’s hypothesis, scientists surveyed WOULD reject M’s hypothesis. With that misunderstanding, the negation of (A) did not weaken the argument. I thought the author would say, “so what? I am saying that once they do hear about the contradiction, they will reject M’s hypothesis. I don’t care whether they know now.”
And the negation of (E) seemed to weaken. If a rejection of something is solely based upon the contradiction to some current law, then it must be that the law is in fact true. If it were not, how can we completely rule something out on the basis of contradiction alone?

However, now that I see what the argument is saying, I see my error in reasoning.

Thank you very much!