PrepTest 111, Section 4, Question 18
Philosopher: Scientists talk about the pursuit of truth,(56 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the philosopher's(6 more words not shown)
- Aimproperly infers that(17 more words not shown)
- Bimproperly draws an(14 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without giving(14 more words not shown)
- Dillicitly takes advantage(8 more words not shown)
- Eimproperly draws an(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't pursuing the truth also serve a scientist's interests?
A scientist might want a Nobel Prize and work hard to make an important discovery. Someone might discover a cure partly because they want to become famous. We'd still benefit from the discovery. Wanting recognition doesn't show that finding the truth is merely an incidental goal; the two ambitions could go together.
What we’re looking for
The philosopher puts personal advancement first and truth second, then reaches a conclusion about the scientific community's priorities. My initial concern is that ranking of motives. Even if we accept that scientists are self-interested, why must their interest in truth be secondary? For this flaw question, I'll look for an unsupported move in the reasoning, while keeping that concern in mind.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion concerns the scientific community as a whole. It doesn't say that each and every scientist has the characteristic attributed to most scientists. There could still be individual exceptions. A describes a move from most people to every person, which isn't the move the conclusion makes.
- BCorrect
This points to a different gap from the one that first caught my attention. The premise concerns individual scientists trying to advance their own careers. The conclusion concerns the scientific community trying to enhance its status as a whole. Those are different goals.
An individual could want to become more prominent than other scientists without trying to improve the standing of the entire community. Scientists might even compete in ways that help their own careers at others' expense. So even if we accept the premise about most scientists' personal motives, we haven't established what the community's activities collectively aim to achieve. B identifies that unsupported shift.
- C
This sounds close to our initial concern, but 'never' makes it inaccurate. The philosopher doesn't claim that career advancement never leads to truth. Calling truth an incidental goal allows that a scientist seeking recognition might also advance knowledge. Our concern was whether the author had justified making truth secondary; C instead accuses the author of ruling out any overlap at all.
- D
Self-interest refers to pursuing one's own benefit. The argument doesn't use that term in one sense and then switch to a different sense to reach the conclusion. We may dispute what follows from self-interest, but that isn't the same as identifying two meanings of the term.
- E
The argument isn't working backward from observed effects to an alleged cause. Its final move is from the aims of individual scientists to the aims of their community. A general description of faulty causal reasoning doesn't capture that specific move.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.