PrepTest 139, Section 1, Question 21
Essayist: Winners of a Nobel prize for science,(47 more words not shown)
If the essayist's statements are(11 more words not shown)
- ASome amateur scientists(15 more words not shown)
- BTypically, winners of(15 more words not shown)
- CThe love of(10 more words not shown)
- DProfessional scientists have(11 more words not shown)
- EA professional scientist(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
You can contribute to science without being a professional scientist. The passage explicitly gives amateurs credit for many significant contributions, and says their motive is the love of discovery alone.
What we’re looking for
The other facts need to stay just as precise. Nobel winners are typically professionals, and all those winners have made significant contributions. That doesn't mean every significant contribution earns a Nobel. We're given facts to combine, not an argument we need to attack. For the must-be-true question, I'll test the choices against those facts and avoid filling in what seems likely.
Working the answers
- A
This is tempting. Amateurs made significant contributions, and Nobel winners are typically professionals. It's easy to read that as meaning some contributing amateurs went without a prize. But “typically” doesn't prevent amateurs from winning.
Imagine five amateur scientists made many significant contributions and all five won Nobel prizes, while a much larger group of professional scientists also won. Winners would still typically be professionals, and amateurs would still have made many contributions. Yet there would be no contributing amateur without a prize. The passage leaves that possibility open, so A isn't guaranteed.
- B
Having an economic motive or wanting fame doesn't rule out loving discovery as well. “Alone” describes the amateurs' motivation; the passage doesn't say professionals are motivated only by money and fame. B adds an exclusion that isn't given.
- CCorrect
Amateur scientists have made many significant contributions, and those scientists are motivated by the love of discovery alone. So the love of discovery is the motive behind those many contributions. This follows without deciding who won a prize or comparing the total contributions of amateurs and professionals.
- D
We aren't told which group contributed more overall. The fact that Nobel winners are typically professionals tells us about the composition of the prize-winning group, not the total amount of science contributed by each group. Amateurs could make many contributions without settling this comparison.
- E
This claims that a particular motive raises a professional scientist's likelihood of making a significant contribution. The passage gives no comparison between professionals motivated by discovery and those without that motive. Knowing amateurs contribute from that motive doesn't establish its effect on a professional's chances.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.