PrepTest 114, Section 1, Question 3
An anthropologist hypothesized that a certain medicinal powder(63 more words not shown)
In the absence of the(16 more words not shown)
- AReporting results for(21 more words not shown)
- BScientists can commit(9 more words not shown)
- CScientists can neglect(13 more words not shown)
- DScientists commit fraud(13 more words not shown)
- EScientists who neglect(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A negative result is exactly the kind of result a researcher shouldn't simply wish away. The anthropologist predicted the powder contained toxin T, tested for it, and didn't report the negative result. My first concern is that an inconvenient finding might be getting buried.
But a negative test result isn't automatically a finding that the toxin is absent. If the test was performed incorrectly, repeating it could make sense. The anthropologist says the acidic solution invalidated this test. Does acid actually interfere with it? We'd need that connection before accepting the explanation.
What we’re looking for
This question tells us to set aside her reply and find a principle supporting the chemist's fraud charge. So we aren't resolving the acid issue here. I'd look for a rule that counts withholding a result that could go against your hypothesis as fraud. That would connect the conduct we know about to the charge.
Working the answers
- A
Neither kind of reporting described here is the conduct in the passage. The anthropologist didn't invent an experiment and report results for it, nor are we told she reported a false result for the real experiment. The experiment occurred, and she didn't report its result. A gives rules for different conduct.
- B
A scientist could report some unfavorable results and still commit fraud. That doesn't tell us that withholding this result is fraud. B describes something that can coexist with fraud; it doesn't supply a reason to classify the anthropologist's particular act that way.
- C
This allows withholding some unfavorable results without committing fraud. That possibility would help resist a charge based only on the withholding. It doesn't supply the principle we need to support the chemist's accusation.
- D
Reporting a result as valid while knowing it is invalid is different from not reporting a result. The anthropologist didn't present this negative test as a valid result. D therefore doesn't put the known conduct into its fraud category.
- ECorrect
This rule classifies failure to report an experiment that could disconfirm a scientist's hypothesis as fraud. The hypothesis was that the powder contained a significant amount of toxin T, and the test was negative. That negative result could be read against the hypothesis, yet the anthropologist withheld it. Under E's rule, the chemist's charge has support.
We don't have to establish E as a universal rule of scientific practice ourselves. The question asks what principle, if established, would support the charge. E supplies the connection we predicted, while the question has explicitly set aside the anthropologist's reply.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.