PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 8
Essayist: Knowledge has been defined as a true(82 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- Aasserting that the(21 more words not shown)
- Basserting that the(20 more words not shown)
- Carguing against the(5 more words not shown)
- Dexplaining that the(9 more words not shown)
- Edemonstrating that the(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The definition isn't treating everything a person believes as knowledge. It requires the belief to be true and to come from a reliable process. Someone's mistaken opinion wouldn't qualify just because they confidently called it knowledge.
Now imagine the proposed clairvoyant: a person who supposedly has a psychic ability to know things. If someone kept correctly predicting lottery results or the scores of games, I'd want to understand what was happening. For this hypothetical, we need to take the claimed reliability seriously rather than dismiss the person just because the ability sounds strange.
The criticism says we would still reject that person's claim to knowledge, even if the ability were reliable. The essayist agrees that we would reject it but disputes what that rejection reveals. According to the essayist, we reject it because we don't really believe the supposed process is reliable. If we did believe it, we would accept the knowledge claim.
What we’re looking for
So the defense turns on our judgment about reliability. For the method question, look for a description of how the essayist uses that judgment to answer the objection. We aren't being asked whether psychic powers actually exist.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The critic treats our rejection of the clairvoyant as evidence that a true belief from a reliable process still might not count as knowledge. The essayist gives a different explanation: we don't really accept the example as a reliable process in the first place.
On that explanation, our reaction doesn't expose a defect in the definition. We reject the claim because we think a requirement of the definition hasn't been met. The final sentence reinforces the defense: if our belief about the process changed, the essayist says we would accept the knowledge claim. A captures that distinction between doubting the example's reliability and rejecting the definition itself.
- B
The essayist doesn't assert that this is a case of knowledge despite our disbelief in the process. The claim is about what we would accept if we believed the process reliable. B removes that condition and attributes an acceptance of the knowledge claim that the essayist never gives.
- C
The essayist isn't trying to prove that clairvoyance is reliable or to overturn our doubts about it. Those doubts are offered as the explanation for our rejection. C turns a defense of the definition into a defense of the supposed psychic ability.
- D
Explaining why people accept or reject a claim isn't the same as saying everyone can choose a definition of knowledge. The essayist is defending the stated definition by explaining our response to a proposed example. Nothing makes the definition a matter of personal preference.
- E
The essayist doesn't demonstrate that the hypothetical ability is actually unreliable or that beliefs formed through it cannot be knowledge. The defense concerns what we believe about the process and why we would reject the claim. E substitutes a proof about whether the case meets the definition for an explanation of our reaction to it.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.