PrepTest 134, Section 3, Question 22
Science writer: Scientists' astounding success rate with research(79 more words not shown)
The science writer's statements, if(9 more words not shown)
- AIf a problem(24 more words not shown)
- BAny problem a(17 more words not shown)
- CScientists would probably(18 more words not shown)
- DMost of the(25 more words not shown)
- EThe only reason(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A great batting average tells us less if the batter gets to choose the pitches.
That's the science writer's concern. Scientists usually choose their research problems, and even when politicians or business leaders choose them, scientists help shape the questions so scientific solutions are feasible. The track record comes from that selected set, not from an unrestricted collection of every problem people might want solved.
This doesn't mean the chosen problems are effortless or that scientists aren't skilled. It means the selection process matters. If scientists were routinely asked to tackle problems that couldn't be framed for a scientific solution, we shouldn't automatically expect the same success rate.
What we’re looking for
For the inference, I'd stay with that difference between the problems scientists undertake and the broader range of possible problems. The writer is explaining why their impressive record doesn't establish that science can solve anything.
Working the answers
- A
This runs from being suitable for scientific work to usually being selected. The passage runs from selected work to its suitability for scientific solutions. There could be many feasible projects nobody asks scientists to undertake. We know about the kinds of problems in their workload, not what fraction of all suitable problems makes it into that workload.
- B
Any problem a scientist can solve is broader than the selected research problems discussed here. A scientist might solve a personal or practical problem without formulating it for a scientific solution. The passage doesn't establish that every solvable problem of every kind must admit that formulation. B also goes beyond the passage's qualified description of what scientists are asked to do.
- CCorrect
Loosening the selection criteria would probably lower the success rate. The current process favors problems that can be framed for scientific solutions. A less restricted selection would allow more problems that don't lend themselves to that approach, giving us a reason to expect fewer successes proportionally. Probably is appropriately modest: the claim concerns a likely effect, not certain failure on every additional problem.
- D
The passage describes what happens when politicians or business leaders choose a research problem. It doesn't tell us that most of the workload consists of problems they want solved and whose formulation scientists have guided. We don't know the size of that group. Even if outside leaders also want some scientist-selected problems solved, the passage doesn't quantify that overlap. A description of what happens in certain cases isn't a majority claim.
- E
Only goes too far. Selection could contribute to the success rate alongside scientists' knowledge, skill, and effort. Also, scientists can shape a problem even when someone else selects it. The passage supports the importance of choosing or framing feasible questions, not the claim that scientists' own selection is the sole reason science succeeds.
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.