Q23 - Television network executive: Some scientists

[gregory.mortenson]

The wording of the answer choices is confusing, but I can't see why A is correct.

In the question prompt, it says that scientists think that If paranormal pop culture, Then impede scientific understanding. The TV exec refutes this by noting that throughout history pop culture has had instances of ghosts, and so If paranormal pop culture, Then not impeding scientific understanding.

We are asked to weaken the TV exec's argument (vulnerable to criticism). Answer choice A talks about two phenomenon and how one can advance even when it is impeded by another. I can't figure out with this is saying in terms of the question prompt, and thus why it is correct. Can you please explain?

[superfilms]

The TV Exec assumes that if science advanced, then understanding of science must not have been impeded. By analogy, consider your car: could it move forward even if impeded by the side of your house? Of course, although it wouldn't move as far as it would have if the house weren't there.

Answer (A) refutes that assumption; science CAN advance even when understanding of science is impeded.

[dan]

Superfilms, I agree with your logic.

When we're trying to find a flaw, or when we're trying to identify an assumption, it helps to distill the argument down to its core: P ---> C. One premise supporting one conclusion. Everything else will likely distract us. Here's the core for this particular argument:

dramatists have historically used paranormal incidents, and scientific understanding has still advanced

SO...

TV shows that use paranormal incidents will not impede scientific understanding

When we isolate the argument core like this, the problem should become more apparent. If you're not seeing it, consider superfilm's analogy (which is a good one), or the following analogy:

in the past, I've ridden my bike into the wind, and I've still gotten to my final destination

SO...

today when I ride my bike into the wind, the wind will not impede my progress

This is a flawed argument, and perhaps it's obvious why it's flawed. The author assumes that arriving at his destination means that he was not impeded by the wind. Of course this isn't the case. You can be slowed, or impeded, by the wind and still make it to where you're going.

Same holds in the original argument. The author neglects to consider that scientific understanding can make advances even while it is being impeded by paranormal TV programming. The two aren't mutually exclusive. To assume that they are is the flaw of the argument. This is what answer (A) states.

By the way, superfilms, I love that you're using analogies to help you understand these arguments. What a great way to get a handle on the underlying logic. Often, it's the confusing subject matter and difficult language that distracts us from the underlying logic. One of the best ways to gain some focus is to rewrite the argument using analogous logic, but dramatically simplified language.

Thanks for the post, Gregory. Good question.

Let's go through all the wrong answers:

(B) is tempting, but the problem is there isn't any correlation mentioned!

(C) is also tempting - maybe the reliance on ghosts and spirits has affected the public's scientific understanding, without impeding it. However the argument "doesn't care" if something affects but doesn't impede - it's all about whether it's impeding! Affect all you want.

(D) is fancy-sounding. But, the issue at hand is whether using ghosts and spirits in stories impede the public's scientific understanding.

(E) is super-tempting! It sounds so much like (A). But, let's tease it apart: "one phenomenon causes another" means that using spirits causes an impediment to scientific understanding. Sure, the TV exec is discussing that - and, as (E) states, she says that it's baseless. However, the problem comes in the second part "if the latter phenomenon has persisted" - if the impediment has persisted. Wait! The exec isn't saying that the phenomenon has persisted! She actually states that scientific understanding has improved, a statement that, as (A) notes, can allow for some impediments, but definitely doesn't explicitly say that the impediment has persisted. It seems like (E) is talking about scientific understanding persisting, but it's talking about impediments persisting.

[lhermary]

Why is A right over E?

Thanks

[noah]

Let's go through all the wrong answers:

(B) is tempting, but the problem is there isn't any correlation mentioned!

(C) is also tempting - maybe the reliance on ghosts and spirits has affected the public's scientific understanding, without impeding it. However the argument "doesn't care" if something affects but doesn't impede - it's all about whether it's impeding! Affect all you want.

(D) is fancy-sounding. But, the issue at hand is whether using ghosts and spirits in stories impede the public's scientific understanding.

(E) is super-tempting! It sounds so much like (A). But, let's tease it apart: "one phenomenon causes another" means that using spirits causes an impediment to scientific understanding. Sure, the TV exec is discussing that - and, as (E) states, she says that it's baseless. However, the problem comes in the second part "if the latter phenomenon has persisted" - if the impediment has persisted. Wait! The exec isn't saying that the phenomenon has persisted! She actually states that scientific understanding has improved, a statement that, as (A) notes, can allow for some impediments, but definitely doesn't explicitly say that the impediment has persisted. It seems like (E) is talking about scientific understanding persisting, but it's talking about impediments persisting.

[lhermary]

Noah, can you explain why 'A' is right? I don't get how the argument is vulnerable to 'A' when it (A) sounds like it is basically restating what the author said.

The TV executive is saying that the scientists arguments are baseless because history is lined with paranormal entertainment and science has persisted, which is what A is saying. How is it a criticism?

muchas gracias

[timmydoeslsat]

I will give just a rudimentary post before Noah jumps on this one.

Choice A is saying that the TV arguer is ruling out that something was impeded simply because something can still advance.

The TV arguer says that predictions of the public's scientific understanding being impeded by X is baseless.

Why?

There has been an advancement of understanding over the years even though X occurred.

He is failing to consider that the public's understanding could have still been impeded, regardless of an advancement of understanding. Perhaps, the advancement would have been much greater without X occurring.

[noah]

Noah, can you explain why 'A' is right? I don't get how the argument is vulnerable to 'A' when it (A) sounds like it is basically restating what the author said.

The TV executive is saying that the scientists arguments are baseless because history is lined with paranormal entertainment and science has persisted, which is what A is saying. How is it a criticism?

muchas gracias

Timmy is right in his analysis of the argument.

I think what you're missing, lhermary, is that the executive never says that the ghost stories impeded the advance of scientific understanding. She only mentions the advance, acting as if the the ghost stories had no effect. But, as (A) notes, perhaps those stories slowed down the advancement, and thus the scientists' concerns would be valid.

That make sense?

In case not, here's an analogy:

People say that eating no bread slows down the build up of fat. But I have not eaten any bread for a year, and I've gained 1 pound of fat during that time.

Couldn't it be still true that not eating bread helped slow down the build up? Maybe if I had eaten bread, I would have gained 5 pounds of fat. (By the way, that analogy goes out to my wife, who does the shopping and never buys bread for us, and has thus led me to lose 10 pounds.)

I removed the answer text from your post, as I wouldn't want LSAC mad at you for posting anything they copyrighted.

[austindyoung]

I got this one correct, however, upon reviewing I kept looking at (C) and wondered why it was wrong.

Even when I looked at the explanation, I saw "affect all you want," and I was like, "How though, isn't affecting the same thing as to impede?"

The answer is, "No," of course not. However, it is so easy in the realm of a stimulus to throw assumptions onto various words and give them a logical quality that they do not have.

There are many words, I have noticed, on the LSAT, that are actually neutral- like "affect" in AC (C), that have what I call, a qualitative, bidirectional extension. It seems that wrong ACs and confusing stims. try to capitalize on the logical value that we improperly give some of these neutral terms. Bidirectional extension sounds weird, but to use (C) as an example, "affect" could be a positive or negative thing in this case.

Assuming a negative connotation to "affect" makes AC (C) trickier than it is (i.e., similar to (A))-- when in fact when we look at (C) and say, "Well, is this a positive (one direction) or negative (the other direction) affect?" we see that it does not have the same logical (and, in this case, directionally negative impact) that "impede" does. It's neutral, out of scope, and not a flaw of the argument, because we are concerned about a subset of "affect": impeding.

I hope that made sense! It helps me to write this stuff out

[dean.won]

is E wrong because the stimulus says that SA have ADVANCED even though ghosts stories have PERSISTED

whereas E says that SA have PERSISTED (opposed to advanced) despite INCREASES to ghosts stories (opposed to persisted)

basically E has the persistence/increasing part backwards??

[noah]

is E wrong because the stimulus says that SA have ADVANCED even though ghosts stories have PERSISTED

whereas E says that SA have PERSISTED (opposed to advanced) despite INCREASES to ghosts stories (opposed to persisted)

basically E has the persistence/increasing part backwards??

Did you read my explanation above?

The confusing thing is figuring out what (E) is referring to as a cause and effect. The only cause and effect discussed is ghost stories causing an impediment to scientific understanding. Take another look.

[A B]

Hi there, I just want to ask a small follow-up question here. What about the word "steadily"? In the stimulus it says, "and yet the scientific understanding of the populace has advanced steadily." Does that change your analogy with the wind in any way?

If something steadily advances, couldn't that be interpreted as not having any hiccups or bumps along the road? For example, I'm picturing a heart rate monitor and I'm thinking that steadily advancing would be the lines not having any sharp increases or decreases in them, just all steady at the same rate more or less moving nicely across the screen without changing very much. So in this instance, I feel that steadily has an implication of being constant, and thus an impediment, would not allow one to be constant, don't you think?

I could see how with your wind example, perhaps you might say, you were still moving steadily along, just at a slower pace due to the impediment of the wind. So, if you normally move at 8 miles per hour, now you'll be steadily riding at 5 miles per hour. So yes, you'll still be steady, but to get to that point, didn't you initially have a "sharp drop" from your normal 8 miles? So wouldn't it look like a sharp decline in the heart rate monitor image I'm thinking of, and thus not be steady? A potential response to this you might have is that a sharp decline could then later be met with a sharp incline at some other instance, and thus you'd be back to your average "steady" progress.

So, basically, I can see how steadily would and would not pose a problem, and I'd love to read your thoughts instead of continuing this debate in my head.

Thanks!

[quote="dan"]Superfilms, I agree with your logic.

When we're trying to find a flaw, or when we're trying to identify an assumption, it helps to distill the argument down to its core: P ---> C. One premise supporting one conclusion. Everything else will likely distract us. Here's the core for this particular argument:

dramatists have historically used paranormal incidents, and scientific understanding has still advanced

SO...

TV shows that use paranormal incidents will not impede scientific understanding

When we isolate the argument core like this, the problem should become more apparent. If you're not seeing it, consider superfilm's analogy (which is a good one), or the following analogy:

in the past, I've ridden my bike into the wind, and I've still gotten to my final destination

SO...

today when I ride my bike into the wind, the wind will not impede my progress

This is a flawed argument, and perhaps it's obvious why it's flawed. The author assumes that arriving at his destination means that he was not impeded by the wind. Of course this isn't the case. You can be slowed, or impeded, by the wind and still make it to where you're going.

Same holds in the original argument. The author neglects to consider that scientific understanding can make advances even while it is being impeded by paranormal TV programming. The two aren't mutually exclusive. To assume that they are is the flaw of the argument. This is what answer (A) states.

[mshinners]

[b]Hi there, I just want to ask a small follow-up question here. What about the word "steadily"? In the stimulus it says, "and yet the scientific understanding of the populace has advanced steadily." Does that change your analogy with the wind in any way?

If something steadily advances, couldn't that be interpreted as not having any hiccups or bumps along the road?

It wouldn't provide issues for the wind analogy. "Steadily" doesn't imply a lack of bumps or hiccups - just that the hiccups or bumps, if they exist, are counteracted by other things.

Let's flesh out the bike example to reflect more of the possibilities for steadily:
Let's say you wanted to ride your bike at 15mph. A wind kicks up. You could still steadily advance (i.e., at the same pace) if you pedal harder to maintain that 15mph.
Or let's say you started to ride downhill and tugged on your brakes to stay at a safe 15 mph. You'd still be riding steadily, and there would have been a hiccup (wind) and accelerant (hill), but they were counteracted by something else.

When something steadily advances, it could mean that there were no hiccups. It could also mean that all the hiccups were perfectly balanced out by other facts. That's the discrepancy at play here - even if the advancement is steady, that doesn't mean there's no impediments or accelerants, just that all those factors are balancing out.