LR Drill Set 1, Question 7
In a study of several hundred scientists, researchers(27 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(11 more words not shown)
- AMost scientists produce(22 more words not shown)
- BThe several hundred(26 more words not shown)
- COn average, the(18 more words not shown)
- DThe amount of(34 more words not shown)
- EFor a scientist(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the scientists with more disappointing work also produce more work, period.
Think of someone who publishes constantly. A large body of work can contain plenty of weak pieces and also several excellent ones. Compare that with a scientist who produces very little. The less productive scientist might have fewer failures simply because there are fewer attempts, not because the scientist has achieved more.
A content creator gives us an everyday comparison. Someone who has posted hundreds of videos can have more forgettable videos than a person who posted ten, while also having more excellent videos.
We shouldn't conclude that the forgettable posts caused the success. Total output could help explain both the number of weak efforts and the number of hits.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to explain the scientists' surprising pattern. We aren't trying to deny that it happened, and we don't need to recommend producing bad work. My prediction is that a higher volume of work brings more of both kinds: more mediocre work and more work that earns recognition.
Working the answers
- A
This explains why a successful scientist might have some mediocre work. It doesn't explain why the scientists with more mediocre work are, on average, more successful. Most scientists could produce many weak pieces without there being any relationship between the number of those pieces and their success. We need a connection between the amounts, not just permission for good and bad work to coexist.
- B
The study's scientists could be unusual and we would still have a pattern to explain within that group. We aren't being asked whether the result can be generalized to every scientist. Saying the sample isn't fully representative leaves unanswered why more flawed work goes with greater success among the scientists studied.
- C
It makes sense that producing more important work would bring more success. But where does the greater amount of mediocre work fit? C gives us the connection between high-quality work and success without connecting either to the weak work mentioned in the puzzle. D supplies that missing relationship.
- DCorrect
As total output rises, both mediocre work and work contributing to success tend to rise. Now we can see why the two things in the passage go together. A prolific scientist has more unsuccessful attempts but also more accomplishments that bring recognition. The bad work needn't be the cause of the success; both can accompany a larger body of work.
- E
A large proportion of superior work is different from a large number of weak pieces. A scientist could have both, depending on the total output. But E doesn't tell us how the amount of weak work connects with that superior work or with success. It adds a requirement for success without explaining the observed pattern.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.