Q26 - People ought to take into account

[mymansupa]

I'm really not seeing how (B) is the correct answer. I just don't understand how the "current theories" come into play. Please explain this to me. Thank you

[bbirdwell]

The current theories come into play because the argument is about a discipline versus its origins (ie present vs past).

The argument concludes that we should take into account the "blemished origins" of a discipline when assessing its value. The example given is chemistry and chemistry's origin, alchemy.

(B) says "wait a minute! current chemistry might be WAY different from the alchemists mentioned."

If it were true, for example, that chemistry's current theories were much, much different from those of the alchemists mentioned in the argument, should we really consider those alchemists when assessing the valuing of chemistry? Maybe not.

[andrea.feuer]

I follow what you are saying about B, but what is so wrong about C? Isn't the principle that disciplines with blemished origins cannot provide scientific value; hence with answer choice C the example contradicts the principle because alchemists obtained many of chemistry's "landmark" results which would suggest that disciplines with blemished origins can provide scientific value. Thanks for your clarification.

[bbirdwell]

Isn't the principle that disciplines with blemished origins cannot provide scientific value

Not exactly. The principle is that origins should be taken into account. This is not contradicted by the example. Quite the opposite, the example is given to support it.

because alchemists obtained many of chemistry's "landmark" results which would suggest that disciplines with blemished origins can provide scientific value.

Not necessarily. Quacks can have "landmarks" too. The author is clearly suggesting exactly the opposite, in fact. Why else would he/she want us to consider chemistry's blemished origins in order to assess its value? The only logical reason to do this would be to lower chemistry's value.

[LSAT-Chang]

Could someone help me dissect this argument?

Because this is a flaw question, I was trying to look for the core but couldn't find one.

Also, I don't understand how (B) is a flaw.. why does the author have to consider (B)?

I would really appreciate it if someone could walk through this problem starting with the core and with the answer choices.. Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

The core is:

Alchemists obtained landmark results of chemistry
+
Alchemists explanations of magic dominated early chemical theory

---> People should take into account a discipline's blemished origin when assessing its scientific value


Why "should" we take this into account?

That is a flaw. There is no principle that guides us as to why we should do this action.

The answer choices will feed on this:


A) Common LSAT wrong answer. The argument does not have to do this.

B) Looks good. If chemistry is so radically different now than how it was, then why should we take those embarrassing days into account?

C) Nothing is being contradicted here.

D) Same problem as A. The argument does not have to do that.

E) The word discipline is not used ambiguously in this argument.

[LSAT-Chang]

B) Looks good. If chemistry is so radically different now than how it was, then why should we take those embarrassing days into account?

Ah hah, now I see it... I wasn't able to extract that thought from answer choice (B), so it seemed like one of those incorrect answers to me.

[WaltGrace1983]

I think that (A) and (D) are too very interesting answers. Is the problem with (A) and (D) the fact that the argument never establishes the relationship between "scientific value" and "(blemished) origins?"

That is, the arguer simply says that we "ought to take origins into account when we determine value" but that doesn't necessarily mean anything about how value is acquired/~acquired. It doesn't mean that (Scientific Value → ~Blemished Origins), (~Scientific Value → Blemished Origins), etc. Instead, the argument is just saying that one ought to take them into account without actually stating anything about their relationship.

That is why (A) and (D) are wrong. Correct?

[christine.defenbaugh]

I think that (A) and (D) are too very interesting answers. Is the problem with (A) and (D) the fact that the argument never establishes the relationship between "scientific value" and "(blemished) origins?"

That is, the arguer simply says that we "ought to take origins into account when we determine value" but that doesn't necessarily mean anything about how value is acquired/~acquired. It doesn't mean that (Scientific Value → ~Blemished Origins), (~Scientific Value → Blemished Origins), etc. Instead, the argument is just saying that one ought to take them into account without actually stating anything about their relationship.

That is why (A) and (D) are wrong. Correct?

I think that (A) and (D) are super interesting too, but I think there's more to it than what you're laying out. I think maybe going back to the core would help us here a bit.

PREMISE: Chemistry origins based in alchemists' superstitions and appeals to magic
CONCLUSION: When determining the (current) scientific value of a discipline, you should look at the origins

In order for this argument to make any sense, this author must be assuming that the alchemical origins of chemistry have some bearing on the current scientific value. If they did, chemistry would serve as a specific example of the general principle he's trying to put forward. If they didn't, then the example is not really relevant to the principle he's pushing.

Since his idea is all about "blemished --> not scientifically valuable", (A) trades on a negation of that whole idea. But we don't need "unblemished --> scientifically valuable" in order to conclude that "blemished --> not scientifically valuable".

You could also say that "unblemished origins" are out of scope for this argument - we are only really concerned with what happens if the origins are blemished.

Now, (D) gets the right groups in play, [blemished] and [not scientifically valuable], but flips the relationship between them. If this author were trying to say that "not scientifically valuable --> blemished", proving that 'most non-scientifically valuable disciplines have blemished origins' would help a lot. But our author was suggesting the reverse, that "blemished --> not scientifically valuable".

Once again, this is really out of scope, as we don't need to know anything about most non-scientifically-valuable disciplines.

So, (A) is predicated on a negation of the author's basic assumption, while (D) is actually based on a reversal. While this isn't really a classic conditional logic question, it's useful to see the underpinnings that make (A) and (D) potentially attractive.

Also notice that our core used a particular example (chemistry) in order to support a broader principle/rule. The main structural question is really: how relevant is this example to that point? Only (B) actually addresses the potential relevance of this example specifically to that broader conclusion.

For completeness sake, let's address the two more straightforward incorrect answers:
(C): It's worth pointing out that it's not actually bad logic to use an example to contradict a principle under consideration, as long as your conclusion is "therefore, this principle sucks." It would be weird to purport to support a principle, and then give an example that explicitly undermined it, so that could arguably be a flaw. But this author does neither of those things. He uses an example to support the principle, and that example does not explicitly contradict it.

(E) A favorite wrong answer of the LSAT-writing team, the "uses a word in two different senses" is rarely correct. We actually only use the word twice, both in the first sentence, and it's very clear that they mean the exact same thing in both instances.

What do you think? I love this question, because the core is actually quite hard to see at first, but once you break it out appropriately, the murkiness of a few of the wrong answers clears up.

[WaltGrace1983]

That was a great response! So, in a way, some of the principles that apply to principle questions (no pun intended) or perhaps sufficient assumption questions apply here? That is, we still have to have some matchup with the premise - it still needs to be in the narrow scope of what the premises are ACTUALLY talking about. When I say it like that it sounds rudimentary so I'll show you what I mean with some examples...

The Core:

Blemished origins
→
Scientific value is not valuable

So if we have anything that says...

- ~Blemished Origins → ___________
- _________ → Scientifically Valuable
- ~Blemished Origins → ~Scientifically Valuable

is simply not flawed. Why? Because the argument never assumes anything about this stuff as it only talks about (Blemished Origins) → ~(Valuable) and the argument certainly isn't flawed because it fails to consider this stuff! Failing to consider this stuff is okay because the argument is not about this stuff!

The best (only?) way that we can adequately identify the flaw is to show why (Blemished Origins) ~→ ~(Valuable).

That is why (A) and (D) are wrong.





It's the little nuances that will be pivotal to success I suppose. Quickly eliminating bad answer choices is key and understanding nuances like this certainly will help me. Thanks.

[stm_512]

I'm beginning to see the beauty of many LSAT questions.

It's so easy to get swayed by A) and D) if the test taker does not think critically. I think all of us are capable of seeing through the negation and reversal reasoning mistakes that these two answer choices make, but to be able to quickly identify them requires pattern recognition that can be obtained by doing hundreds of logical reasoning problems. I obviously need more fundamental training because I was fooled by both A) and D).

I think the easiest way to tackle this question is to first realize that for this argument to ever work, it must be assuming that a discipline's blemished origin in some sense diminishes the scientific value of that discipline. If not, then why ought people take into account the blemished origins?

After that, the LSAT student should be able to quickly see the logical errors made by A) and D) and confidently pick B) as the correct answer choice.

The first sentence of the stimulus is a curve ball that requires a little logical translation, after which A) and D) are easy to eliminate.

[Mab6q]

The difficulty in this problem, in my opinion, comes not from understanding why the wrong answer choices are wrong, but in justifying B. I choose B, but for a different reason.

After reading the stimulus, I thought: well, the author hasn't really shown that chemistry's origins are blemished or that they are that much different than today's chemistry (not bringing in that many assumptions about modern day chemistry). So, in reading B, I justified it because I thought it was hitting on the fact that the author did not show how chemistry's origins were in fact blemished; maybe that's how chemistry was back then, but it doesn't mean it is blemished. If he showed a difference, you could say that what was originally thought was blemished.

I understand that B doesn't exactly say that, but I'm having a hard time understanding how the other interpretation of B is necessary. If we negate it, and the current theories and the origin's practices have differences, so what? That's what the author is getting at; the fact that there were blemished origins.

Tough question, tough correct answer.

[btwalden]

I understand that B doesn't exactly say that, but I'm having a hard time understanding how the other interpretation of B is necessary. If we negate it, and the current theories and the origin's practices have differences, so what? That's what the author is getting at; the fact that there were blemished origins.

Tough question, tough correct answer.

I completely agree. In order for B to be right you have to make an assumption about what the passage is implying, and if your going to do that some of the other answers could be right to.

So in this case it is about which assumption is the smallest? most plausible? I don't know...

[513852276]

Is this inaccurate to say that the reasoning is flawed?

The argument is:
Premise: "Take, for example, chemistry..."
Conclusion: People ought to...

Answer choice B says the premise is untrue. However, the reasoning in argument is not flawed in this way.

As:
Premise: Dog A is friendly.
Conclusion: Dogs are friendly.

If dog A is unfriendly, the reasoning of argument is still not flawed, as long as assumption "all dogs are identical to dog A in their temper" still hold.

In question 26, a criticism in reasoning could be: "chemistry is a special case among disciplines, so it is unnecessary for all disciplines to be considered with their origins."

Is this thought right?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Lots of great questions on this! Thanks to all of you for posting!

First, 513852276, it sounds to me like you are identifying another assumption this argument is making: that the example of chemistry (one discipline) would be enough to prove that all disciplines should be treated the same way. That is absolutely a problematic assumption, and therefore the argument would be susceptible to a criticism on that basis! Bravo on noticing that!

However, answer choice (B) is focused on a different flaw. You are focused on the move from specific example to general proposition - a problematic move, indeed. But (B) is focused on the applicability of the specific example TO the general proposition!

Answer choice B says the premise is untrue. However, the reasoning in argument is not flawed in this way.

Careful! That's actually not at all what (B) is saying!

Notice the core I laid out above:

PREMISE: Chemistry origins based in alchemists' superstitions and appeals to magic
CONCLUSION: When determining the (current) scientific value of a discipline, you should look at the origins

In order for this argument to make any sense, this author must be assuming that the alchemical origins of chemistry have some bearing on the current scientific value. If they did, chemistry would serve as a specific example of the general principle he's trying to put forward. If they didn't, then the example is not really relevant to the principle he's pushing.

(B) is not saying the premise is untrue. The premise tells us that chemistry's origins are seated in superstition/magic - nothing in (B) calls that into question. The author never tells us why those origins matter for present day assessments of the scientific value of chemistry, though.

If we tweak your example with dogs, it might look like this:

PREMISE: Dog A acted friendly last week.
CONCLUSION: One should consider past behaviors of dogs in assessing their friendliness.

Not only does this just from one dog to all dogs, it also assumes that past friendly actions matter for current "friendliness". If dog A was friendly last week, but is a total jerk now - then why should we care about his past friendly actions?

Remember, just because you've found a flaw in the argument, that doesn't mean it's the only flaw! Arguments are often flawed in multiple ways, and the answer choice might point out a flaw we weren't expecting!




To address the issue of blemished origins:

The difficulty in this problem, in my opinion, comes not from understanding why the wrong answer choices are wrong, but in justifying B. I choose B, but for a different reason.

After reading the stimulus, I thought: well, the author hasn't really shown that chemistry's origins are blemished or that they are that much different than today's chemistry (not bringing in that many assumptions about modern day chemistry). So, in reading B, I justified it because I thought it was hitting on the fact that the author did not show how chemistry's origins were in fact blemished; maybe that's how chemistry was back then, but it doesn't mean it is blemished. If he showed a difference, you could say that what was originally thought was blemished.

I understand that B doesn't exactly say that, but I'm having a hard time understanding how the other interpretation of B is necessary. If we negate it, and the current theories and the origin's practices have differences, so what? That's what the author is getting at; the fact that there were blemished origins.

Tough question, tough correct answer.

I totally agree that this argument is assuming that origins steeped in magic/superstition are 'blemished'! The author never explicitly states as a premise that magic/superstition = blemished, and if it wasn't, then the chemistry example would be totally inapplicable to the general principle he's trying to support!

However, we don't need past-chem and present-chem to be different in order to call the past blemished. They could be identical, and the past could still be blemished - in fact, that would be awesome for the author's argument, because it would mean that present-chem is also blemished!

Like 513852276, you are picking up on an additional assumption the author is making, but one that, ultimately, isn't handled by answer (B).

Even if the author had established that past-chem was blemished, he would still need to address why we should care about that when assessing the current scientific value of the discipline. We'd still need some connection between past-chem and present-chem in order for the idea that past-chem is blemished to matter - if past-chem and present-chem have absolutely nothing to do with each other, then how would past-chem affect the current scientific value?

I completely agree. In order for B to be right you have to make an assumption about what the passage is implying, and if your going to do that some of the other answers could be right to.

So in this case it is about which assumption is the smallest? most plausible? I don't know...

I don't think that's true! What assumptions do we have to make for (B) to be right? Remember that the conclusion is about assessing the current scientific value of a discipline - for bad origins to affect this, we need some connection between the bad origins and the present reality!

Please let me know if this helped clear up a few things!

[Mab6q]

Lots of great questions on this! Thanks to all of you for posting!

First, 513852276, it sounds to me like you are identifying another assumption this argument is making: that the example of chemistry (one discipline) would be enough to prove that all disciplines should be treated the same way. That is absolutely a problematic assumption, and therefore the argument would be susceptible to a criticism on that basis! Bravo on noticing that!

However, answer choice (B) is focused on a different flaw. You are focused on the move from specific example to general proposition - a problematic move, indeed. But (B) is focused on the applicability of the specific example TO the general proposition!

To address the issue of blemished origins:

The difficulty in this problem, in my opinion, comes not from understanding why the wrong answer choices are wrong, but in justifying B. I choose B, but for a different reason.

After reading the stimulus, I thought: well, the author hasn't really shown that chemistry's origins are blemished or that they are that much different than today's chemistry (not bringing in that many assumptions about modern day chemistry). So, in reading B, I justified it because I thought it was hitting on the fact that the author did not show how chemistry's origins were in fact blemished; maybe that's how chemistry was back then, but it doesn't mean it is blemished. If he showed a difference, you could say that what was originally thought was blemished.

I understand that B doesn't exactly say that, but I'm having a hard time understanding how the other interpretation of B is necessary. If we negate it, and the current theories and the origin's practices have differences, so what? That's what the author is getting at; the fact that there were blemished origins.

Tough question, tough correct answer.

I totally agree that this argument is assuming that origins steeped in magic/superstition are 'blemished'! The author never explicitly states as a premise that magic/superstition = blemished, and if it wasn't, then the chemistry example would be totally inapplicable to the general principle he's trying to support!

However, we don't need past-chem and present-chem to be different in order to call the past blemished. They could be identical, and the past could still be blemished - in fact, that would be awesome for the author's argument, because it would mean that present-chem is also blemished!

Like 513852276, you are picking up on an additional assumption the author is making, but one that, ultimately, isn't handled by answer (B).

Even if the author had established that past-chem was blemished, he would still need to address why we should care about that when assessing the current scientific value of the discipline. We'd still need some connection between past-chem and present-chem in order for the idea that past-chem is blemished to matter - if past-chem and present-chem have absolutely nothing to do with each other, then how would past-chem affect the current scientific value?


Please let me know if this helped clear up a few things!

I understand what you are saying about the author needing to establish why we should care about whether past chem was blemished, that is no doubt the main flaw. However, I'm still not getting why B gives us that. All B says is that the author doesn't show how the past origins are different than the current theories. Am I missing something here, or does that not seem to line up with the flaw that we identified??

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. And don't get me wrong, it's definitely better than any of the other choices.

[rinagoldfield]

Hi Mab6q,

Hmm. Let’s lay out some of the assumptions here:

1. Does alchemy count as a blemished origin?
2. Are a discipline’s origins relevant to evaluating that discipline today?

Choice (B) does not address the first assumption, but it does address the second one. It distinguishes between chemistry’s current practices and its origins, suggesting that the origins may not, in fact, be relevant to the discipline’s current state.

Best,
Rina

[Mab6q]

Hi Mab6q,

Hmm. Let’s lay out some of the assumptions here:

1. Does alchemy count as a blemished origin?
2. Are a discipline’s origins relevant to evaluating that discipline today?

Choice (B) does not address the first assumption, but it does address the second one. It distinguishes between chemistry’s current practices and its origins, suggesting that the origins may not, in fact, be relevant to the discipline’s current state.

Best,
Rina

I appreciate the response Rina,

Mind if I follow-up with another question. I'm trying to understand what I should take away from this question. It is an odd stimulus, and I'm not sure we really have an argument core, just a conclusion with an example. Your second assumption seems to be directly questioning the conclusion itself. Why is that okay in this situation? I though we generally we not supposed to question the conclusion directly, but the reasoning. Does it have to do with the reasoning structure (no premise, just conclusion)?

Thanks.

[rinagoldfield]

Good point, Mab6q.
The answer choice is talks about chemistry, but it is mostly relevant to the logic of the conclusion. I think the takeaway is process of elimination.

[anthonyagostino]

I sat and I read this AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.

This is a timed test and they know it. So just like the Logic games, it is not about PERMUTATIONS and COMMUTATIONS, it is about the ability to ascertain from a collections of words what the authors TRUE focus is and work with that.

LOTS of distraction on this and the quantity of answers that revolve around all this logic, though beautiful and theoretically valid, is useless in a pinch. Sure we can calculate the speed of a bullet and all the math in the world or we can rely on our intuition and pull the trigger. If so many people are going to equations, I have to think...perhaps it was a set up.

Follow me.

Think of EVERYTHING as a distraction and a set up. EVERYONE is focused on BLEMISH. That is what they want. But if you look past.....it says.... in dramatic tones to INCLUDE a -

A GROUP WHOSE SUPERSTITIONS AND APPEALS TO MAGIC DOMINATED THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF CHEMICAL THEORY.

The whole kit and caboodle was a set up for that. That was the undefined BLEMISH.

All of the drama before it...blemish blemish blah blah blah WHAT WAS THE BLEMISH. It was OLD ... THEORY...AND APPEALS (PRACTICE) in the early development...

So the answer focuses on NOW...THEORY .... PRACTICE.

The three keys.... Old vs New ... THEORY, and APPEAL/PRACTICE compared on equal footing. Blemished...was a distraction....WE NEVER PROVED THAT BELIEVING IN MAGIC WAS A BLEMISH. So why chase windmills calling them dragons?

Furthermore, this asks for MOST SUSCEPTIBLE to CRITICISM...... Think of those words. Who and what would you criticize? MOST.... proving something is blemished in the beginning or not has no bearing on assessing the validity of a SCIENCE today. Did not say guilty...it asked for MOST susceptible. The author is telling you to take the beginnings of a science to EVALUATE its' VALIDITY today. WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT SOMETHING STARTED OUT AS? He completely left out using TODAYS RESULTS and TODAY'S philosophy in the evaluation process. Is it of ANY use to debate how something started? Think about it logically ...if someone said when interviewing people for a job.... People who pooped their pants as kids are useless today. You would spot instantly that his is using the wrong criteria. He has to come in to the present and utilize current valid references. Not get drawn in to a debate as to whether pooping is a valid criteria or whether pooping / not pooping discernible. Sure we can argue it, that perhaps those who don't poop their pants have some form of measurable advantage.....but it would be MOST critical in that sure....at two he pooped his pants but TODAY HE HAS A JD. It is not the poop or the blemish that gets the job done it's the JD.