Q7 - Scientist: Any theory that is to be taken seriously

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks, GodLovesUgly. You are bringing in your own knowledge of astrology, which is not necessary. In fact, it sounds like your knowledge is distracting you from seeing why C is correct. It does not matter whether you agree with the author’s argument; it only matters that you can parse through the author’s argument.

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: It is not the case that Affect Perception World --> Take Seriously (APW --> TS).
Evidence: Astrology exists.


Any prephrase?
APW --> TS is a conditional statement. To show that a conditional statement is not the case, one must find a counterexample that satisfies the sufficient but not the necessary condition.

For example, if I wanted to disprove the conditional statement that all lawyers are dull (L --> D), I would simply need to find a lawyer who was not dull.

Here, the author is offering astrology as that counter example. Thus, astrology must meet the sufficient condition (APW) but not the necessary condition (TS)

Answer choice analysis:
A) is wrong because it negates the sufficient condition.

B) is wrong because it talks about what we should consider a theory in general, while the argument concerns serious theories.

C) Looks Good.

D) is wrong because the author thinks astrology should not be taken seriously.

E) is wrong because the author thinks astrology should not be taken seriously, and that it affects our perception of the world.

The correct answer is C.

Takeaway/Pattern: To refute a conditional, you want something that IS the left side but ISN'T the right side of the conditional statement.

#officialexplanation

[kelseyjschutte]

I had a really tough time with this one. Could someone please explain it for me? Thank!

[sumukh09]

So this question basically amounts to a "role question" in that we have to determine what function some part of the argument plays in the overall scheme of things. In this case, we have to figure out why the author mentioned "astrology" in the stimulus. But to do this we need context; the first sentence provides a conditional relationship although we don't really need to diagram this since conditional logic is not really involved to determine the correct answer choice. Basically the first sentence says for a theory to be taken seriously, it must affect our perception of the world. Simple enough to comprehend. The second part of the stim says a theory needs more than merely just affect our perception of the world to be taken seriously. In other words, A is sufficient for B (taken seriously --> affect our perception of the world), but there are more requirements necessary that have not been stipulated for a theory to be taken seriously. Finally, to make the point that a theory needs more than just the necessary condition of affecting our perception of the world, the author cites astrology as an example of a theory that needs more than just affect our perception of the world.

C perfectly hits at this as it says astrology is a theory that affects our perception of the world, but should not be taken seriously since a theory needs to do more than just affect our perception of the world to be taken seriously as described by the stimulus.

[paulam68]

Not sure if anyone still posts on these forums seeing as to how most of them are from a couple years ago but it's worth a shot.

I am confused as to how C is the correct answer. The stimulus mentions that a theory must affect our perception of the world if it is to be taken seriously. Seems like the argument states that astrology does affect our perception of the world, which is still one of necessary conditions of a theory being taken seriously. The answer choice states that astrology should NOT be taken seriously even though it DOES affect our perception of the world. There are clearly other factors involved in determining whether a theory should be taken seriously. How do we know that astrology should not be taken seriously if it could also meet the other qualifications necessary besides the one that it already met?

Thank you!

[GodLovesUgly]

I agree with the previous post. I chose (C), but this question is odd. Am I missing something about the general view of astrology?? Obviously, astrology changes our perception of the world, but it also is a theory that dates back to Nostradamus, Ptolemy, etc. That said, astrology obviously has numerous other qualities that allow for it to be a legitimate and at times ground breaking theoretical pursuit. I'm so confused, maybe I am way over thinking this question considering it is only #7 of the set. Any help would be greatly appreciated...

[GodLovesUgly]

Thx Rina! I was definitely way overthinking it!

[jsdulberg]

Rina, thank you for the explanation. I spent more time on this for a #7 than I would have hoped for a reason that you did not mention, and I wanted to run it by you and hear your thoughts.

You mentioned that "Conclusion: It is not the case that Affect Perception World --> Take Seriously (APW --> TS)."

I believe you derived this conclusion from this sentence in the stimulus, "Of course, this is not, in itself, enough for a theory to be taken seriously" (emphasis added).

My thought is that the conditional that the stimulus gives is TS --> APW, whereas the APW --> TS is implied by Astrology example. So once you understood the Astrology example to mean APW --> TS, as was implied by the ambiguous "this," you had already solved the crux of the problem.

[daijob]

Hi Rina,

I have a question...you made the conditional statement as APW=>TS, but actually I got TS=>APW.
And I thought "this" in the second statement means "affect" part, and then made XXX+APW=>TS.
Then I thought maybe the first condition was TS<=>APW, but although TS=>APW is true, the scientist argues APW=> TS is actually not true, because there should be other factors to arrive TS, so XXX+APW=>TS.
To show this is true, the scientist gave an example, astrology.
Thus, astrology should follow XXX+APW=>TS format, and this means there are something other than APW, so APT alone cannot lead to TS...but then I got confused, because although there is additional factor, XXX, APW of astrology still lead to TS.
What did I miss here?
Actually I could not understand why you have APW=>TS, because it says "Any...must" format so I thought it is TS=APW.
I also got confused because now I'm not sure what "this" means in the stimulus...

Thank you

[aescano209]

Hey just wanted to chime in here. I agree with the above poster's with regards to the first statement, but before that I would just like to put my $0.02 in on this question. This is a role of a statement question and our goal here is to figure out the purpose of the statement listed in the question stem. Going to the stimulus now the first statement provides us with a conditional statement which can be formatted as such (Seriously --> Affect Perception of World) If I am correct the must does indicated the necessity of the latter half of that statement. If you think about the statement flipped around like this (Affect Perception of World --> Seriously) That would essentially lead to a different conclusion from the stimulus because since astrology does affect our perception of the world then that would lead us to take it seriously? Also, if I am correct that kind of conditional statement with the affecting perception of the world as sufficient to being taken seriously would actually lead to a contradictory conclusion from the one provided in the stimulus. Please correct me if I am wrong please. Anyways. Then the author says essentially that affecting our perception of the world, although necessary to be taken seriously, does not mean that is suffcient to trigger being taken seriously. The author brings up astrology as an example of that claim. The purpose of astrology is to show that it does satisfy our necessary condition, but it is not sufficient to conclude that it should be taken seriously. That is what leads us to answer choice C.

[ohthatpatrick]

You guys are correct that the first sentence would be diagrammed
TAKEN SERIOUSLY -> AFFECTS OUR PERCEPTION

And when a sentence begins with a pronoun like "this" / "that" / "these", then you basically just assume we're referring to the last thing you heard.

f.e. Anyone who wants to run for President must expose her personal life to scrutiny. Of course, this is why so many people choose not to run.

This = exposing one's personal life to scrutiny

Rina was saying that the conclusion is REJECTING the conditional idea that
"AFFECTS PERCEPTION --> TAKEN SERIOUSLY"

As the previous poster said, the author is saying that "affecting our perception" is NECESSARY to be taken seriously but it's not SUFFICIENT ("enough") to be taken seriously.

Symbolically, if you really wanted to go there for this conclusion, you might write
Conc: AFFECTS PERCEPTION ---/---> TAKEN SERIOUSLY

When you're denying a conditional statement, you're basically saying the arrow isn't true. There is NOT a certain relationship that gets you from one to the other.

And as Rina said, to PROVE a conditional statement is wrong, you have to come up with a counterexample, in which you meet the SUFF condition but do NOT get to the NEC condition.

So this author needs an example of something that
DOES affect perception
but
DOESN'T get taken seriously

Oh, hello, astrology.

[aescano209]

Thanks OhPatrick. All of your posts and analysis of the questions have been very helpful as of late. Every analysis, tips and trick for the LSAT has given me the tools to weed out wrong and quite challenging answer choices. Also, I have to say your breakdowns of the core along with the rest of MLSAT team have really helped me hone in on things that in the past I have struggled with. Thanks.!

[raven]

I'm working through the way I look at this problem, but the first thing I think should be done is a diagram of the first claim since the author then goes on to say it is not true.

The first claim would be represented like this: "If ts --> APW."
So, that claim not being true, according to the author, looks like this: "If ts --> not APW."
Astrology is the example she gives of her claim revision so we look for the answer that best fits her diagram and come across C:
The equivalent of "If ts --> not APW" in contrapositive form = "If not ts, APW."

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're misunderstanding the stimulus.

The author doesn't say that the initial conditional is false.

He says that "affecting our perceptions", while NECESSARY to be taken seriously is not SUFFICIENT to be taken seriously.

There is no way to diagram the meaning of that sentence.

It's as though I said,
"Any person that is elected President of the US must be at least 35 years old. Of course, this is not, in itself, enough for a person to be President .... (you also have to be a natural born US citizen, not a felon, etc.)"

[SabrinaM590]

I chose the correct answer, but was hesitant between (A) and (C), simply because I did not pull out APW --> TS from the stimulus.

Ultimately, I am uncertain as to how and why APW --> TS is pulled out from the stimulus, or if we test-takers had to critically draw this out in order to get to APW --> ~TS.

Here is what I think:

Sentence 1 states: TS --> APW

I think that Sentence 2 is then a counter-premise to sentence 1, which ultimately states that there needs to be more than just APW for TS to happen (and thus, the author states that APW --> ~TS

In sentence 3, the author uses astrology as an example of his statement in sentence 2, and thus APWa --> ~TSa (the lowercase a = astrology)

The question stem then asks what the purpose of drawing on astrology was.

Since astrology is an example of a theory that affects our perception of the world, but should not be taken seriously (S2: APW --> ~TS),
then APW --> TS is just a conditional statement that we are using as a base to show that APW --> ~TS.

In other words, nowhere is it stated directly in the stimulus that APW --> TS, but rather we need to counter this conditional statement. And, to do so, we must show that the sufficient condition can still occur (APW), without the necessary condition occurring (TS... therefore ~TS).

P.S even in writing this out, I am having trouble wording what APW-->TS is meant to do, and where it came from. PLEASE HELP!

[JerryE119]

I chose the correct answer, but was hesitant between (A) and (C), simply because I did not pull out APW --> TS from the stimulus.

Ultimately, I am uncertain as to how and why APW --> TS is pulled out from the stimulus, or if we test-takers had to critically draw this out in order to get to APW --> ~TS.

Here is what I think:

Sentence 1 states: TS --> APW

I think that Sentence 2 is then a counter-premise to sentence 1, which ultimately states that there needs to be more than just APW for TS to happen (and thus, the author states that APW --> ~TS

In sentence 3, the author uses astrology as an example of his statement in sentence 2, and thus APWa --> ~TSa (the lowercase a = astrology)

The question stem then asks what the purpose of drawing on astrology was.

Since astrology is an example of a theory that affects our perception of the world, but should not be taken seriously (S2: APW --> ~TS),
then APW --> TS is just a conditional statement that we are using as a base to show that APW --> ~TS.

In other words, nowhere is it stated directly in the stimulus that APW --> TS, but rather we need to counter this conditional statement. And, to do so, we must show that the sufficient condition can still occur (APW), without the necessary condition occurring (TS... therefore ~TS).

P.S even in writing this out, I am having trouble wording what APW-->TS is meant to do, and where it came from. PLEASE HELP!

It seems like you are analyzing a specific argument or passage and trying to understand the relationship between the conditions mentioned in the stimulus. However, without having access to the actual stimulus or the context of the question, it's challenging for me to provide specific guidance or clarification on the specific arguments and logical connections involved.

If you have a specific question or argument that you'd like assistance with, please provide more details, including the specific statements or premises involved. This way, I can try to help you better understand the logical relationships and provide more targeted guidance.