Q2 - The current theory about earthquakes

[mxl392]

I don't see why B is right. shouldn't it be "The current theory cannot be explained by the data?"

A lack of heat found isn't "data" is it?

Or "the data is not sufficient to prove the current theory."

I have problems with how the answer is phrased.

[maryadkins]

The data and theory don't match up, basically. I wouldn't harp on the precise wording because there isn't a contender other than (B) that identifies the conclusion: that the data and theory don't match up, as of now.

Data does support the theory; theory doesn't explain the data.

(A) isn't the conclusion.
(C) is too extreme.
(D) is not in there.
(E) is very much not in there.

Hope this helps!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Mary and I both wrote explanations at the same time!!! So here's a two for one on explanations...

shouldn't it be "The current theory cannot be explained by the data?"

Is close, but we're not looking to explain a theory, but looking to confirm/challenge a theory. We can do this by asking whether the theory explains what we can actually measure. The current theory about earthquakes suggests that such events would generate heat. But the predicted heat has not been detected. The lack of heat detected implies that we have measured the heat generated by an earthquake, collected this "data," analyzed it, and found no heat that could be attributed to the earthquake.

So while the argument does not call the information about how heat was measured "data," it is implied that the data we have about heat generation from earthquakes (or the lack of it) is not explained by our current theory - best expressed in answer choice (B).

Incorrect Answers
(A) is evidence provided to support the conclusion.
(C) is not a claim made or implied in the argument.
(D) may be one reason why earthquake theory is accurate and yet we have not measured the heat implied by earthquakes.
(E) is too strong. The argument never goes so far as to deny the validity of the current theory about earthquakes.

[hnadgauda]

I still don't understand the answer to this. The core of this argument is:

no weather changes after earthquake --> one part of earthquake theory is mysterious

Gap: what if the heat manifested itself in some other way other than weather change?

This is why I chose D; it matched the gap I came up with. I eliminated B because it seemed too far of a jump to say the current theory doesn't explain earthquake data.

Can you please help figure out why my reasoning is wrong?

[ohthatpatrick]

Why are you looking for a gap?

This is a Main Conclusion question. We're trying to just find and identify which claim is the Main Conclusion (to be fair -- "Main POINT" is sometimes a little more gist-y)

Do you know the 2 main patterns for finding the Conclusion on Main Conclusion questions (hint: it is NOT likely to be the last sentence. it is NOT likely to have a Conclusion indicator like "thus/therefore/hence")

#1 Pattern - a "but/yet/however" rebuttal after we've introduced some background point of view

#2 Pattern - the first sentence

(#3 Pattern - indirectly indicated by Premise indicators ("after all, for, this can be seen from the fact")

I would bracket the 2nd sentence as my Conclusion:
"one part of earthquake theory is mysterious" (as you said)

Now we just have to go find the answer that sounds the most like that Conclusion, which in this case is (B).

Our conclusion doesn't mention anything about "heat", so that would make (D) a clear mismatch.