PrepTest 111, Section 1, Question 2
Lecturer: Given our current state of knowledge and(93 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AWhatever is a(6 more words not shown)
- BIf a generalization(15 more words not shown)
- CWhatever is true(11 more words not shown)
- DIf a generalization(15 more words not shown)
- EWhatever is regarded(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We haven't found a failed test. That is different from having tested every possible case.
The scientific terminology is dense, but the lecturer explains the distinction we need. Tests have not falsified the generalization. At the same time, it hasn't been checked in every corner of the universe under every feasible condition. We can understand those limits without becoming experts on entropy.
The lecturer nevertheless says the generalization is correctly treated as a scientific law. So the issue is what standard earns that classification. Does a scientific law need exhaustive verification, or can the evidence available through current science be enough?
What we’re looking for
We're asked to justify calling this a law. My initial thought is that the justification must allow a law without testing absolutely every possible circumstance. More specifically, we need a rule that takes the evidence status described here and leads to the classification “scientific law.” Merely saying the statement hasn't been disproved won't yet give us that rule.
Working the answers
- A
This tells us something that must be true of a scientific law: it hasn't been falsified. But meeting that description doesn't establish that something is a law. Many claims could remain unfalsified without qualifying for that status. We need a rule that gets us to the classification, not just a requirement that an already-classified law meets.
- B
Not testing every feasible condition isn't the same as confirming a claim under only a few circumstances. We aren't told that this generalization received only that limited testing. B also gives a reason to withhold the classification in a particular situation, rather than a reason to award it in the situation described.
- C
The lecturer does say that the generalization is concluded to be universally true. But C concerns what will eventually be confirmed, not what qualifies as a scientific law now. Even if we accepted that future prediction, we would still lack the rule connecting the evidence to the classification we are asked to justify.
- DCorrect
This supplies the classification rule: confirmation to the extent current science allows is enough for a generalization to be considered a scientific law.
Return to the opening reference to our current knowledge and technology. The lecturer describes the generalization's successful testing within that scientific setting, while acknowledging the absence of exhaustive verification. D explains why those limits don't prevent the classification. The required standard is confirmation within current scientific limits, not testing every conceivable case throughout the universe.
- E
This starts with a statement already regarded as a law and predicts that it will eventually be conclusively verified. We need to justify regarding the statement as a law in the first place. A forecast about what happens afterward doesn't supply that justification. The lecturer also doesn't need to promise that exhaustive verification will ever become possible.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.