PrepTest 127, Section 1, Question 10
Prediction, the hallmark of the natural sciences, appears(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe social sciences(11 more words not shown)
- BMathematics plays a(14 more words not shown)
- CThere is a(11 more words not shown)
- DPhenomena in the(9 more words not shown)
- EPrediction is responsible(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Think about testing whether watering helps plants grow. We can make a prediction and then measure the plants: perhaps one reaches ten centimeters while another reaches five. Using numbers lets us compare the outcome with what we expected. That helps make sense of the opening claim about mathematics and prediction in the natural sciences.
I can also see why social scientists might want that tool. They could count positive reactions to something or ask people to rate a feeling from one to ten. So when the author says the proposed reduction would be a mistake, I want to know why.
The reason is that some relevant information is not easily expressed mathematically. Reducing the social phenomena to formulas would leave that information out and distort what is being studied. We could ask whether numerical and other evidence can be used together, or whether difficulty in measurement is a reason to keep working on it. But be precise about the author's target: reducing the phenomena to mathematical expressions, not necessarily every use of numbers in social science.
What we’re looking for
For the main-conclusion question, “this would be a mistake” is the judgment supported by the final explanation. Replace “this” with the proposal it refers to: social scientists should not reduce their subject matter to mathematical formulas. That is the point to look for.
Working the answers
- A
The passage starts with the predictive achievement of natural science and some social scientists' desire for similar power. But the conclusion is a judgment about a proposed method, not a comparison of the two fields' current predictive abilities. A leaves out the recommendation the final reason supports.
- B
Relative importance is another comparison the author does not make as the main point. Saying a particular reduction would distort social phenomena is different from deciding how important mathematics is in each field overall. We need the judgment about that reduction.
- C
Some social scientists want more accurate predictions. That does not mean the author concludes that they need to improve their predictive ability. The author evaluates their proposed way of pursuing the goal; C instead endorses the goal as a need.
- DCorrect
Social phenomena should not be reduced to mathematical formulas. This spells out what the author calls a mistake. The predicted loss of hard-to-quantify information supplies the reason for rejecting the reduction; D gives the judgment that reason supports.
- E
Calling prediction a hallmark of natural science is not the same as establishing that prediction caused the field's success. More importantly, the discussion of natural science introduces the method that some social scientists want to copy. The conclusion concerns why copying that reduction would be a mistake, not why natural science succeeded.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.