LR Drill Set 12, Question 6
Scientific researchers only a few decades ago benefited(65 more words not shown)
The situation described above most(9 more words not shown)
- AAn increase in(19 more words not shown)
- BThe greater the(26 more words not shown)
- CIt is not(22 more words not shown)
- DThe more research(23 more words not shown)
- EThe more that(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More useful information can become harder to use. Imagine a biologist trying to keep up with findings in chemistry and physics as well as biology. A few relevant discoveries might be manageable. An enormous stream of new work could take so much time to sort through that the biologist can't maintain the same familiarity with those other fields.
That's the problem described here. The outside information hasn't become irrelevant. Some research problems still require ideas from several disciplines. What has changed is the amount researchers must sift through to obtain the knowledge they need.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for a general statement that fits this situation. My first thought is that too much information can stall progress. “Paralysis” would be stronger than we need: the passage doesn't say researchers stop reading or accomplish nothing. The useful idea is that a greater supply of relevant information can itself make a research problem harder to solve.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
More relevant information can interfere with a researcher's ability to solve a problem. The information would be useful if the researcher could keep up with it, but its volume makes achieving that familiarity nearly impossible. For problems requiring knowledge across fields, that creates an obstacle. A captures that possibility without claiming that information is always harmful or research has stopped entirely.
- B
The number of colleagues isn't what the passage compares. Nor does it discuss how much help a researcher must request from them. More colleagues might produce more research, but we would have to add that relationship and a claim about seeking help. The answer takes us beyond the situation described.
- C
This is tempting because trying to read everything can sound like a poor strategy. Imagine reading endlessly about the LSAT without ever practicing a question. But that would be an argument about how someone should allocate their time.
Here, the problem is the volume of information available and the resulting difficulty of becoming familiar with other fields. The passage doesn't compare information-gathering strategies or establish what a researcher should try to gather. A describes the stated obstacle directly; C turns it into advice the passage hasn't evaluated.
- D
We aren't told that more research makes sharing it increasingly important. Sharing might help, but it could also leave other researchers with even more material to sift through. The passage identifies a difficulty caused by information volume without making this recommendation about communication.
- E
More sharing isn't shown to produce steadily more success. Researchers could spend so much time exchanging and sorting results that they have less time for their own work. That is a possibility illustrating why E's broad relationship isn't established. The passage supports a limit on what researchers can absorb, not a promise that every increase in sharing improves everyone's results.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.