Q25

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

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

25. (E)
Question type: Inference (47-57)
The author’s opinions are made most clear in the final paragraph.

Answer choice (E) is the most accurate of the available answer choices in terms of representing the author’s opinions, and is therefore correct.

"Persuaded of the possibility that numerous unstable systems exist" parallels the phrase "There are presumably other such systems," and "confident that the existence of numerous unstable systems would call into question one of the foundations of science" parallels the phrase, "scientists would be forced to question one of the basic principles that guide their work."

(D) is the most attractive of the remaining choices. The difference between (D) and (E) is the word "unsure." Yes, the author might be unsure of whether numerous unstable systems exist, but she is not unsure ("would be forced") about whether, if they did exist, they would call into question a foundation of science.

(A) is incorrect because of its contradictory interpretation and incorrect representation of the degree of the author’s opinion.
(B) is incorrect because of its flawed representation of the degree of the author’s opinion.
(C) is incorrect because of its flawed representation of the degree of the author’s opinion.

[hyewonkim89]

Hi MLSAT,

(C) was the most attractive wrong answer in my opinion and I ended up picking it over (E).

What is the difference between "convinced of the existence of numerous unstable systems" and "persuaded of the possibility that numerous unstable systems exist?"

What makes (E) better than (C)?

Thank you!

[lavning]

I got the same the question wrong in the same way, choosing C over E. Is C be wrong because in line 47, the author uses the phrase "presumably" to indicate that it's very possible but not certain that there are other systems like the one posited by the two scientists? Thus, the author's not convinced but only persuaded?

Thanks!

[aznriceboi17]

My guess is that it becomes a matter of degree: to be persuaded of something is a weaker statement than saying you're convinced of something.

An example sentence: Although Bob finally persuaded Tom to go along with the plan, Tom not fully convinced that it was the best thing to do.

I'm not too happy with this explanation, since it's splitting hairs between two words that nowadays seem to be used interchangeably (except for some cases where it's grammatically correct to use one but not the other). I'd love to hear other people's input.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Oh, I'm so glad you all are asking about this distinction! I love this question!

Aznriceboi17, you are SO completely spot on when you say that the distinction between "convinced" and "persuaded" feels like hairsplitting - that is precisely what it is! While there is a teeny, tiny, itty, bitty connotation distinction between the two words, we use them functionally interchangeably.

I am convinced that we should go
I am persuaded that we should go

They both sound pretty sure...

I was finally convinced to go
I was finally persuaded to go

They both sound pretty reluctant...

Lavning has the right idea that the word "presumably" indicates mere likelihood, not surety. But the critical word in the answer choice is possibility!

In (E) the author is merely persuaded of the possibility of the existence of the numerous unstable systems, while in (C) the author is convinced of the existence of those systems.

The fact that the distinction between convinced and persuaded is *so* hairsplitty should absolutely be a giant red flag that there must be some other more meaningful distinction between the answers.

Bravo on your instincts, Aznriceboi17, you just needed to carry it to the next step of mining the answers for more distinctions!

Does that help?

[andreperez7]

I just wanted to corroborate and chime in. I, too, first thought the key lied in "convinced" versus "persuaded." But the difference (as the LSAT pro above confirms) is existence versus possibility. "Existence" amounts to "yes, must be true" while "possibility" amounts to "maybe." In other words, it's a "must be true" versus a "could be true," and if you're down to the wire on these two, as you know, go with the could be true that is much easier to be correct in general, strategy wise.

Anyway, to be picky, the passage ends on why it's so likely to exist (lines 47-52), not that it does.

[e.sterlingsmith]

For all the explanations above I was between A and E. They're exactly the same, save for the first words (skeptical vs persuaded) and I felt persuaded was slightly strong given the evidence in the paragraph and made a last minute switch to A. The explanation in Chapter 9 of the problem even explicitly states "the author may not be sure of the existence of of these systems, but seems sure of what will happen if they exist." Is this not analogous with "skeptical but sure" and at the very least a closer match then "persuaded and sure"?

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's say we're debating whether there are any Trump supporters at Berkeley, one of the most liberal colleges in America.

If you're skeptical of the possibility that they exist, you're leaning towards the idea that "there are ZERO Trump supporters at Berkeley."

If I'm persuaded of the possibility that they exist, I'm leaning towards the idea that "there is AT LEAST ONE Trump supporter at Berkeley."

First of all, notice how much safer a position I've taken. "The possibility of something existing" is such a very weak standard.

If we say we're skeptical of it, we're doubting / dubious / distrusting. We find it more likely that there are ZERO Trump supporters there.

Can you find any line reference to support the loaded claim that "the author leans towards the possibility that (nearly) ZERO unstable systems exist"?

Line 47-50 sounds like the opposite of that: "There are presumably other such systems ..."

I think you might be interpreting "skeptical" as "neutral ... reserving judgment ... can't be 100% sure", but skeptical is used to mean "less than 50%" confidence. It's not neutral.

Hope this helps.