Q19 - Social scientist: Since the body

[cassandra.b.smith]

I am just getting completely lost in the language of this stimulus and it's answer choices. Can anyone help walk me through it?

Thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

This argument is concluding that interpreters have misconstrued the Marxist theory by perceiving it as a political program with a goal of transforming society.

The only evidence we have is that this theory should be regarded as a scientific theory. (We were given a premise supporting this from the beginning, with it being true that this theory describes the historical movement toward the eventual socialization of production)

So we want something that completely justifies that these two ideas are incompatible with one another: marxism being a scientific theory and a political program with a certain goal.

Answer choice D does that. This answer choice could have been written either way. Scientific theories does not imply political programs or political programs do not imply scientific theories.

[ohthatpatrick]

Nice explanation.

I just want to add a little bit to the original poster's lament about the dense, obscure language that makes it hard to read this argument.

You'll find, in LR and in RC, that when the actual topic/details of what you're reading are difficult to understand, your understanding of LSAT's structural cues can be a HUGE crutch.

For all its big words and complexity of topic, the first sentence just says this:
Since X, Y.

Because of this structure, we know that what comes AFTER the comma is a conclusion, supported by what came BEFORE the comma.

The next sentence begins "Thus, ..."

Because of this marker, we know that the previous idea is meant to support this final conclusion.

So this argument has a structure of
prem --> intermed. conc --> conclusion

On a Sufficient Assumption question, we should be concerned with that final link between intermediate conclusion and main conclusion.

The intermediate conclusion is a short, sweet idea: "Marxism should be regarded as scientific theory".

The main conclusion is not as easy to summarize on first read. How could we put the last sentence into friendlier terms?

"People are wrong to say that Marxism is a political program aimed at radically transforming society".

Hmm, let's get even more concise: "Marxism is not a political program aimed at transforming society"

So what is the link we need between intermediate and main conclusion?

regarded as scientific theory --> ~(political program)

Whether I understood the argument/topic as a whole is irrelevant to my ability to figure out the missing link. All I need to see is:
Since [prem], [intermediate conclusion]. Thus, [main conclusion].

Sufficient Assumption, more than any other LR question type, encourages this sort of formulaic, structural reading. These questions are basically "sentence math".

Good luck!

[isaac.botier]

And more explanation!

Q19. D
Question Type: Assumption (Sufficient)

We’re dealing with a Sufficient Assumption question so we need to identify the core. This core is a bit unique in that it has an intermediate conclusion. Intermediate conclusions are supported by a premise and provide support for the ultimate conclusion. Here is the breakdown of the core:

P: Marxism claims to describe rigorously an inexorable historical movement toward socialization of means of production --> IC: Marxism should be regarded as a scientific theory --> C: Certain interpreters have misconstrued Marxism as a political program

We actually have two arguments in this core: P --> IC and IC --> C. We should always be prepared to evaluate both of those arguments for potential issues. However, we are expected to accept the connection between the first premise and the intermediate conclusion. That relationship is given to us as a statement of fact. We should focus on the gap between the intermediate conclusion and the final conclusion.

So we’re looking to fully bridge the gap between our intermediate conclusion and our final conclusion. The reasoning essentially breaks down to: since it’s a scientific theory it isn’t a political program. To fully bridge that gap we should look for an answer choice that tells us that if something is a scientific theory then it isn’t a political program (st --> - pp).

(A) is a premise booster. We don’t need the premise to be reinforced. Instead we accept the premise and conclusion as true and focus on the gap in their logical connection.

(B) is out of scope. The "aims of science" and the "aims of those who seek..." are not part of our core.

(C) might be tempting because it brings up the concepts in the premise and the intermediate conclusion. However, the relationship between the intermediate conclusion and the premise is reversed and the gap that leads to the ultimate conclusion is not addressed. This answer choice would bridge the gap of the following core: P: Marxism is a scientific theory --> C: Marxism is a body of thought consisting purely of rigorous description.

(E) doesn’t address whether scientific theories are (not) political programs. This answer choice could be diagrammed as:

means of production --> socialized (irrespective of political programs)

--

(D) is exactly what we’re looking for. "Scientific theories cannot be correctly interpreted to be or to imply, political programs." The "cannot" in the answer choice signals that we have an absolute relationship, and absolute relationships are how we identify conditional statements.

The answer choice is the same as saying if something is a scientific theory then it’s not a political program (st --> - pp).

Note that this answer choice doesn’t address the P --> IC argument, which is further evidence that we are expected to accept that argument as a collective premise for the ultimate conclusion. This is often the case with arguments that include an intermediate conclusion.

[zainrizvi]

So are our sufficient assumption questions always about intermediate conclusion to main conclusion?

The reason I ask is because there's obviously a huge gap in the original premise and the intermediate conclusion as well.

It seems strange to me that D is sufficient since it doesn't really address the latter gap