PrepTest 135, Section 4, Question 22
Scientist: Physicists claim that their system of careful(60 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the scientist's(13 more words not shown)
- AMajor incidents of(13 more words not shown)
- BVery few incidents(14 more words not shown)
- CNo system of(14 more words not shown)
- DTwenty years ago(24 more words not shown)
- EOver the years,(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The biologists were wrong. Does that mean the physicists are wrong too?
Maybe physics already has safeguards that biology lacked twenty years ago. The physicists' confidence doesn't prove their system works, but the biologists' misplaced confidence doesn't prove the physicists' system fails. We need to know whether the two situations are similar in the way that matters.
The scientist says biology improved its safeguards and prevented further major incidents, then recommends the same kind of improvement for progress in physics. My first thought for a strengthener is evidence that physics has a comparable problem to fix. If its current protections have a real gap, the comparison would become more convincing.
What we’re looking for
That isn't the only possible way to help the argument, though. We need an assumption that makes the stated recommendation better supported, even if it doesn't resolve every concern we've noticed.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
'Deleterious' means harmful. If major scientific fraud harms progress, preventing it would protect something the conclusion cares about. The argument's evidence concerns safeguards against fraud, while its conclusion concerns progress in physics. A supplies a connection between the two.
This isn't my initial prediction about a problem with physics' current safeguards. It doesn't establish that particular gap or prove the recommendation beyond doubt. But it makes fraud prevention a reason to expect a benefit to progress, which strengthens the argument.
- B
Very little fraud in biology during the period after its safeguards improved is compatible with those safeguards working. It doesn't show the improvements were unnecessary. But it also doesn't connect fraud prevention with progress in physics or establish that physics needs the same changes. A supplies the more relevant missing connection.
- C
No system being perfect doesn't mean this system could be improved by the proposed changes. Physics might already have the most effective safeguards available. C tells us perfection is unavailable, not that copying biology's reforms would bring the claimed benefit.
- D
Being better than biology was twenty years ago doesn't tell us how much room physics has to improve now. Imagine rating protection on a ten-point scale: old biology could be at four and current physics at five, or old biology could be at eight and physics already at ten. Both fit the comparison, but only the first leaves clear room for improvement. D doesn't establish the problem we were looking for.
- E
Few major incidents in physics don't support a need to strengthen its safeguards. That record could fit the physicists' claim that their current approach is effective. It doesn't show that adopting the proposed changes would promote progress.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.