Q18 - Modern science is built on

[dan]

18. (B)
Question Type: Inference
Our job is to find the answer that is most easily proved by the information in the passage. Answer (B) is nice and safe. Given the first two sentences of the passage, it’s hard to argue against (B). While it may not be completely provable, it’s certainly the best of the bunch.

(A) is in direct contradiction with the passage. In fact, this reluctance is described as the foundation of modern science.
(C) goes far beyond the text in stating that there is conclusive evidence. We have no support for that in the passage.
(D) is incorrect. We actually don’t know if skeptical scientists have offered alternative hypotheses.
(E) goes a bit too far in stating that recognition is the "primary" motivation.


#officialexplanation

[bnuvincent]

I am not sure about B, you know, in the stimulus it states some scientists are skeptical of the widely accepted prediction of global warming not most, so could you please explain ?

[aileenann]

Thanks for following up on this! It's always important to understand why the correct answer is right in the end.

I think (B) is best supported by the second sentence, "Nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom." This, coupled, with the first sentence saying that modern science is built on attempting to disprove hypotheses. While I can understand your concern - some of the words in (B) are pretty strong - "most," "substantial" - these are inferences that could be drawn given that presumably all scientists (or most) have these strong motivations. It might not be an ideal answer, but that's part of the reason we work by process of elimination.

Please let me know if you have other thoughts about this question!

[mrudula_2005]

see. i can go either way on this one. i either see the "Most" as absolutely a leap and not-inferable based strictly on the text (which is what inference questions demand) and then I also can see how if B said "All" instead of "most" would probably make me even more confident in picking it. I mean, assuming getting recognition is a substantial motive for all people, then of course all researchers (let alone most) in climatology have substantial motive to find evidence that would discredit the global warming hypothesis.

But then that interpretation of mine is based off of me adding in my own assumption!

[eunjung.shin]

I am still not convinced why B is correct.
It says "hundreds of resaerchsers striving ...." and i thought that cant be inferred to say "most resaerchers".


I picked D. Why is D wrong?

[alexg89]

B Modern science is built on attempting to prove a hypothesis incorrect. Nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom = most/commonly supported hypothesis. From this you can tell that a scientist is motivated to disprove a hypothesis that is "widely accepted"- It says directly that it is widely accepted. It isn't that much of a stretch to assume that most scientists are contributing to modern science. What else would they be studying? Alchemy and Leprechauns?

D is wrong because it is not supported anywhere. Key word here is "any." If anything you could infer from the last part (very few find evidence ...) that at least some are offering some kind of alternative.

[ttunden]

Can anyone here explain more precisely why E is not right. I had a tough time deciding between E and B. By OP's explanation, both answer choices are "strong."

They are basically saying similar things except now upon review I notice E says " researchers in global warming" whereas B says "researchers in climatology"

Any difference?

[ohthatpatrick]

How would we support (E)?

If you like an answer on Inference (or Reading Comp for that matter), it’s your job to identify how you would support it using the information provided.

So how would we try to prove the idea that the #1 motivation for doing research in global warming is for recognition in the scientific community? (Primarily = #1 reason)

I want you to try answering that question yourself before reading how I would speculatively answer for you.

We could say that
- the #1 thing that brings recognition in the scientific community is overthrowing conventional wisdom.

hmmm, is it fair to move from "Overthrowing conventional wisdom is the #1 thing that brings recognition" to "Getting recognition is the #1 thing motivating scientists"?

Who’s to say these scientists even WANT recognition? Maybe they got into researching global warming PRIMARILY to assist in saving the planet for future generations. Maybe their PRIMARY interest is simply to learn more about Earth’s changing climate, a topic that fascinates them.

Scientists doing research in global warming probably have a mix of motivations: scientific fascination, concern for future generations, ease of acquiring government funding, chance you’ll get to meet Al Gore ...

How can we rank those motivations using the info provided? There’s no way to decide which one thing is #1.

One final issue with picking (E), is that if (E) is true, then (B) is also true.

If climatologists are PRIMARILY interested in recognition, then most climatologists have substantial motive to discredit global warming (since we were told that doing so - overthrowing conventional wisdom - is the #1 way to get recognition).

Well, that’s weird. If (E) is true, then (B) is also true.

Is it true in reverse? If (B) is true, then does (E) also have to be true?

If most climatologists have substantial motivation to discredit global warming, then does it have to be true that climatology is PRIMARILY motivated by a desire for recognition?

No.

If I said that most climatologists have substantial interest in meeting Al Gore, can you conclude that meeting Al Gore is the PRIMARY motivation for the research they do?

Nope.

This demonstrates that (E) is stronger/broader than (B). There can’t be two correct answers, so we have to pick the more narrow, limited, safer answer: (B).

Looking at (B), we see strong words like "most" and "substantial". How are we justifying those?

Do we know ANYTHING about what motivates climatologists?

- we know that modern science is built on the process of attempting to show that hypotheses are incorrect.

So if we believe that climatologists are participating in modern science, we can infer that one thing that motivates climatologists is a desire to test hypotheses against observations in order to show that the hypotheses are incorrect.

This is really already decent support for (B). (B) could have said "most researchers in astronomy have substantial motive to find evidence that would discredit the Zorgon hypothesis".

What’s the Zorgon hypothesis? Who knows and who cares? I just know that astronomers are scientists and scientists want to find observational evidence that shows a hypothesis is incorrect.

The extra pice helping us to pick (B) is the 2nd sentence:

- we know that nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom

Do we have any idea if climatologists want recognition? No, not really, although it’s pretty safe LSAT common sense to think that recognition, in this context, is understood as a GOOD thing. And it’s safe LSAT common sense to think that people are motivated to get good things.

So that adds a little more support to why we would pick (B)
- scientists generally want to find evidence to discredit hypotheses. Discrediting the widely accepted hypothesis of global warming would ALSO bring the highest level of recognition to the scientist who did so.

We’re justifying "most" in (B) because we’re really going off generalizations that would presumably apply to ALL modern scientists. So in this light, using "most’ instead of "all" is actually softening the strength of (B).

We’re justifying "substantial" in (B) because in addition to the normal motivation of conducting science (trying to find evidence to disprove hypotheses), discrediting global warming would ALSO bring the highest level of recognition.

Hope this helps.