PrepTest 105, Section 4, Question 15
Ideally, scientific laws should display the virtues of(64 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AAll else being(16 more words not shown)
- BThe social sciences(15 more words not shown)
- CTerms such as(9 more words not shown)
- DSocial scientists should(12 more words not shown)
- EThe laws of(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Shouldn't a scientific law first describe its subject accurately? Precision and broad application sound desirable, but making a law neat wouldn't help if it no longer fit what we're studying. That is my initial reaction to the proposed ideal.
The author then explains why social science often falls short of that ideal. Some of its terms are imprecise. I might wonder whether an expert could define “class” or “republicanism” more clearly than an ordinary reader could. Still, the passage attributes the difficulty to the subject matter itself, so we should understand the claim being made rather than replace it with our own view.
The last sentence adds a different limitation: a law may work in certain social systems without applying to all of them.
Think of a rule about relationships between coaches and players that doesn't carry over to relationships within families. That illustrates the difference between describing a particular setting and describing every setting.
What we’re looking for
For a most-strongly-supported question, my prediction is that social-science laws often don't meet the author's ideal of precision and generality. Notice the limits: “often” and “typically” don't tell us that every law must fall short.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This comes straight from the stated ideal: precision and generality are virtues. If everything else is equal, a precise, general law is preferable to one lacking generality.
My prediction focused on the discussion of social science, but A doesn't need to cover that whole discussion. This question asks what the passage supports, not which choice best summarizes every sentence. The first sentence alone supplies support for this preference. We shouldn't reject a straightforward match merely because it uses less of the passage than we expected.
- B
Studying a different subject would be a very different response to the difficulty. The passage doesn't say that social sciences would benefit by taking over the subject matter of physics. Even if that change made their laws easier to state precisely, we have no basis for deciding that abandoning their existing subject matter would benefit them.
- C
The author identifies imprecision but doesn't tell social scientists to fix it by redefining their terms. In fact, the passage says they often have to use imprecise terms because of what they study. We can't infer that a more precise formulation is available for these terms or that the author recommends making one.
- D
More effort might not produce laws that apply to every society. The passage says laws limited to certain systems are typically the only ones possible. It identifies a constraint, not a failure to try hard enough. That doesn't support this recommendation.
- E
Falling short of an ideal is different from failing to count as scientific at all. The passage calls precision and generality virtues; it doesn't make them a definition that excludes every imperfect law.
“Invariably” also goes beyond the evidence. The qualified claims about what social-science laws often or typically do leave room for exceptions. We can't turn those claims into a judgment about every law.
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.