LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- badalov90
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 3
- Joined: September 22nd, 2013
Q25 - Scientists attempting to replicate certain controversi
Hi! I don't really understand why D) is correct. Your help would be much appreciated.
-
- christine.defenbaugh
-
Thanks Received: 585
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 536
- Joined: May 17th, 2013
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q25 - Scientists attempting to replicate certain controversi
I'm so glad you asked, badalov90!
As with all assumption questions, we want to start by breaking down the core:
Premise: our experiments didn't make the other guys' experiments
Conclusion: they must have used faulty measurements
Here the conclusion claims an explanation for the weird event in the premise. But there could be many reasons why the experiments didn't match. Why do these scientists lock onto only this explanation? In simple terms, this argument assumes that no other explanation is possible!
On necessary assumption questions such as this, the assumption might be stated as such a blanket rule. But it also might be framed to eliminate some competing possibility. (D) does exactly that: it brings up a possible alternate explanation, and then eliminates it!
Note what happens when you use the Negation Test.
Negation of (D): the new experiments are just as likely to have faulty measurements. If this were true, then the conclusion that it must be that the original experiment was faulty falls apart.
Since negating (D) destroys the argument, it must be a necessary assumption!
The Unassumed
(A) If this were true, it would weaken the argument by offering an alternative explanation for the mismatch (not an exact replication).
(B) The controversy is not relevant to determining the cause of the mismatch.
(C) The theoretical principles are not relevant to determining the cause of the mismatch.
(E) While this might feel like it bolsters the idea that the original experiment was the flawed one, we certainly don't need this to be true. Negate it: what if the researchers observed the results twice? This does not destroy the argument.
Please let me know if this completely answers your question!
As with all assumption questions, we want to start by breaking down the core:
Premise: our experiments didn't make the other guys' experiments
Conclusion: they must have used faulty measurements
Here the conclusion claims an explanation for the weird event in the premise. But there could be many reasons why the experiments didn't match. Why do these scientists lock onto only this explanation? In simple terms, this argument assumes that no other explanation is possible!
On necessary assumption questions such as this, the assumption might be stated as such a blanket rule. But it also might be framed to eliminate some competing possibility. (D) does exactly that: it brings up a possible alternate explanation, and then eliminates it!
Note what happens when you use the Negation Test.
Negation of (D): the new experiments are just as likely to have faulty measurements. If this were true, then the conclusion that it must be that the original experiment was faulty falls apart.
Since negating (D) destroys the argument, it must be a necessary assumption!
The Unassumed
(A) If this were true, it would weaken the argument by offering an alternative explanation for the mismatch (not an exact replication).
(B) The controversy is not relevant to determining the cause of the mismatch.
(C) The theoretical principles are not relevant to determining the cause of the mismatch.
(E) While this might feel like it bolsters the idea that the original experiment was the flawed one, we certainly don't need this to be true. Negate it: what if the researchers observed the results twice? This does not destroy the argument.
Please let me know if this completely answers your question!
2 posts Page 1 of 1