PrepTest 138, Section 3, Question 20
Scientist: Given the human tendency to explore and(83 more words not shown)
The scientist's argument proceeds(1 more words not shown)
- Areasoning that because(13 more words not shown)
- Bdrawing a conclusion(11 more words not shown)
- Ctaking for granted(18 more words not shown)
- Dinferring that since(20 more words not shown)
- Emaking a prediction(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why should living before a possible future event count against that event ever happening?
That's my initial reaction. The fact that no one has yet reached some future achievement doesn't automatically mean no one will. But the scientist is trying to do more than point out that colonization hasn't happened. We need to follow the statistical step, because the question asks for the method of reasoning.
Start with the hypothesis: trillions of humans eventually colonize the galaxy. If that happens, the scientist says most humans who ever live will belong to that huge future population. Then comes the assumption about us: we have no reason to think we're unrepresentative of humans generally, so we should very likely be among that majority.
What we’re looking for
But we aren't living during the colonization period. The scientist treats that failure of an expected result as evidence against the hypothesis. We can question the claim about our being a representative sample while still describing how the argument uses it. Match those steps, rather than just choosing an answer that sounds critical of a future prediction.
Working the answers
- A
This leaves out the crucial distinction. If the event is galactic colonization, the scientist doesn't merely say, 'It hasn't happened yet, so it probably won't.' The argument first derives an expectation about when we would be living if colonization occurred. Our not meeting that expectation is then used against the colonization hypothesis. A treats the unobserved event and the predicted event as the same thing, missing that extra relationship.
- B
The scientist considers a hypothesis in order to argue against it. Considering 'if colonization happens' is not the same as accepting that colonization will happen as a premise. The conclusion therefore doesn't contradict an accepted premise just by finding the hypothesis unlikely.
- C
The scientist is attempting a prediction about the future from present information about us. The argument doesn't take for granted that such predictions are always impossible. C would undermine the sort of reasoning the scientist is trying to use.
- DCorrect
Map the two parts carefully. The hypothesis is eventual colonization by trillions of humans. The supposedly likely event is our being alive during that enormous population's colonization period. Since we aren't, the scientist concludes that the hypothesis is probably false. D captures the move from an expected consequence failing to occur to doubt about the hypothesis that supposedly makes it likely.
- E
Humanity's tendency to explore explains why some people expect colonization. The scientist's own argument challenges that expectation using the population comparison and our place in it. E describes the opening motivation for the view under discussion, not the scientist's method of rejecting it.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.