Q5 - Science writer: Lemaitre argued that

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

There are two theories that describe the formation of the universe. They both make the same prediction. And what do you know, the prediction is accurate. Even if both theories cannot be correct, the fact that each theory makes a prediction also made by the other doesn't help us figure out which theory is correct. Maybe if one theory made a prediction while the other theory didn't, than whichever one matched reality could be used as evidence against the other.

So for now, neither theory is evidence against the other. This is best described in answer choice (D).

Incorrect Answers
(A) contradicts the passage which argues against Lemaitre.
(B) correctly describes the wrong flaw. There is no equivocation with regard to a key term.
(C) is false. The science writer doesn't assume a causal relationship. The science writer does discuss a prediction, but no causal relationship.
(E) correctly describes the wrong flaw. This argument does not contain a false choice as answer choice (E) suggests. Assuming which of two contradictory theories is correct is different than assuming no other theories beyond these two exist.

#officialexplanation

[priyanka.krishnamurthy]

Hi:

I ended up going with A on this one instead of D. The reason I felt that this was the correct answer stemmed from the part in D where it states "against an alternative theory." This made me think that the two were purportedly in conflict with one another, when that's not the case per the science writer. In addition, neither of the two theories had any kind of credibility established which is why I opted for A instead. Could someone please correct my thinking? Thanks in advance!

[ShiyuF391]

Hi:

I ended up going with A on this one instead of D. The reason I felt that this was the correct answer stemmed from the part in D where it states "against an alternative theory." This made me think that the two were purportedly in conflict with one another, when that's not the case per the science writer. In addition, neither of the two theories had any kind of credibility established which is why I opted for A instead. Could someone please correct my thinking? Thanks in advance!

"neither of the two theories had any kind of credibility established" is exactly the reason why A is wrong. We know nothing about the two scientists from the stimulus except for their opinions. No credibility is ever mentioned, so we cannot say anything about their credibility. In other words, just because you know nothing about the scientists, you cannot say their credibility is not established. Maybe their credibility is established elsewhere (in another parallel universe where everyone happily gets 180 in LSAT) So the part credibility is basically out of scope.

Against is not necessarily implying conflicting ideas, though it feels like that. Here the LSAT writer is trying to express that the science writer uses another scientist's hypothesis illegally/wrongly/falsely (sorry non native speaker pain everyday) as an evidence that could take the role of Lemaitre's hypothesis, though the two reach the exactly same prediction.

HTH