PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 18
Modern science is built on the process of(66 more words not shown)
The information above provides the(9 more words not shown)
- AMost scientists who(20 more words not shown)
- BMost researchers in(14 more words not shown)
- CThere is evidence(10 more words not shown)
- DScientists who are(14 more words not shown)
- EResearch in global(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Trying to knock down an accepted idea is part of the process described here. A scientist proposes an explanation, tests it, and looks for results that might show it is wrong. So the existence of skeptics doesn't surprise me. The passage even gives them an incentive: overturning conventional wisdom brings enormous recognition.
Now put that next to the global-warming prediction. It's widely accepted, and hundreds of researchers are trying to make breakthroughs in the field. Yet very few find evidence that global warming is unlikely. If disproving the accepted idea would be such a major achievement, that shortage of contrary evidence is worth noticing.
My initial reaction is that the prediction seems to be holding up well. But “people are trying to disprove it and mostly aren't finding the evidence” isn't conclusive proof that it is true. I want to keep those claims separate.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the information most supports. I'd be open to an answer about the prediction withstanding scrutiny, but I won't force that guess onto the choices. A narrower claim directly supported by what we've been told is enough. It doesn't have to capture every point in the passage.
Working the answers
- A
Being skeptical is consistent with the process the passage describes: researchers test accepted ideas and try to find out whether they're wrong. Nothing tells us that most reluctant scientists violate accepted standards of debate. Doubt alone doesn't establish misconduct.
- BCorrect
Overturning conventional wisdom brings exceptional recognition. Global warming is a widely accepted prediction. So finding evidence against it would give climatology researchers a substantial opportunity for recognition. That supplies the motive described in B.
This isn't a verdict about whether global warming is true. It's a more limited point supported by the incentive the passage explicitly gives us. We can choose that point even though my first prediction focused on how well the warming hypothesis was holding up.
- C
“Conclusively” goes too far. Few researchers finding contrary evidence is not the same as having evidence that settles the hypothesis beyond question. Our initial reaction was that the prediction seems to be holding up, not that the passage has proved it true.
- D
Failing to find convincing evidence against a hypothesis doesn't mean no one has proposed an alternative. A scientist could suggest another explanation and then be unable to support it. The passage talks about how few researchers find evidence that global warming is unlikely; it doesn't give us a list of every hypothesis skeptics have offered.
- E
Recognition is an incentive, but is it the primary reason people conduct this research? We aren't told. Researchers could also be motivated by understanding the climate or helping people. B only needs a substantial motive to find discrediting evidence. E goes further and makes recognition the main driver of the research overall.
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.