Q24

[noah]

Here's a question a student asked recently. Hope this helps:

First you need to understand the passage:

This passage uses one side of the argument, that an experimental result is credible only if it can be replicated, as a springboard for discussing evidence that opposes that opinion. The majority of the passage simply expands on this evidence in greater detail, and the opposite side of the argument is not articulated until the final sentence of the passage: this evidence opens up the possibility that the replication tenet may be flawed.

Summary of Paragraphs

Paragraph 1 presents one side of the argument, that an experimental result is credible only if it can be replicated, and then introduces evidence, the ideas of Sommerer and Ott, that may oppose this idea.

Paragraph 2 gives background for that opposing evidence: riddled basins of attraction.

Paragraph 3 expands on paragraph 2, and connects it to the central argument: because of the characteristics of certain natural situations, certain experiments are not replicable, even though they are valid.

Paragraph 4 expands on Sommerer and Ott’s ideas.

Paragraph 5 extends the significance of Sommerer and Ott’s ideas, and articulates the opposing viewpoint: the idea that only replicable experiments are credible might need to be questioned.

The scale: scientific experiment credible only if it can be replicated vs. certain experiments can’t be replicated and therefore this tenet should be questioned

24. (C)
Question type: Synthesis (4-8, 40-41)
If you have a clear understanding of the scale, and where Sommerer and Ott sit on the scale, this question should be fairly straightforward.

Answer choice (C) accurately represents what their physical system is meant to prove, and accurately represents our understanding of the two sides of the argument.

(A) is incorrect because it is outside the scope of their theories.
(B) is incorrect because of its contradictory interpretation.
(D) is incorrect because it is beyond the scope of the passage.
(E) is incorrect because it contains unsupported interpretations and goes beyond the scope of the passage.

[rishisb]

Hi, Noah:

Although you posted your answer to Q24 a year ago, I'm wondering if you could explain how an understanding of the scale helps you determine that the answer to this question is C? If you know the scale, how does it ensure that C is correct?

I ask because I understood the scale (or: at least I thought I did) -- -I understood, for instance, that Ott and Sommerer think that sometimes a result cannot be repeated. But, even though I knew that much, I didn't think that C followed straightfowardly.

Thank you!

[noah]

Hi, Noah:

Although you posted your answer to Q24 a year ago, I'm wondering if you could explain how an understanding of the scale helps you determine that the answer to this question is C? If you know the scale, how does it ensure that C is correct?

I ask because I understood the scale (or: at least I thought I did) -- -I understood, for instance, that Ott and Sommerer think that sometimes a result cannot be repeated. But, even though I knew that much, I didn't think that C followed straightfowardly.

Thank you!

My goodness, has it been a year?!

Reading to find the scale has many advantages, but it doesn't answer every question directly. Reading for the scale helps us read actively and aligns us with what the LSAT is testing - whether you can read like a law student. #24 is an inference question - and so we should expect a small "step" away from the text. (C) is strongly supported by lines 6 - 8 in which we're told that there can be changes in starting conditions that are undetectable.

(A) is unsupported - we're never told when and how we can detect whether a region has fractal properties.
(B) contradicts what we learn in lines 42 - 46.
(D) is tempting since the experiment involved spilling water on the boundary, but we don't know about water spilled elsewhere.
(E) is unsupported, we're told about experiments done on certain particles - we don't know about particles in general.

[timsportschuetz]

I really have an issue with answer (C)! There is no way that this passage conclusively states and/or infers that a starting position cannot be exactly recreated! The only thing this passage is referencing are instances of how a minute change of starting positions could alter the outcome. Also, lines 40-41 do absolutely nothing to disprove answer (C). The entire passage is simply talking about the outcomes of an experiment in which the starting positions could be slightly different (even sometimes undetectably so!), however, it does not say anywhere that it is impossible to re-create the exact starting point!

[tommywallach]

If the difference is undetectable, and it has an effect on out come, then it's fair to say that you can't know (because it's undetectable!).

-t