PrepTest 146, Section 2, Question 26
Winston: The rules for awarding Nobel Prizes stipulate(61 more words not shown)
The dialogue most strongly supports(8 more words not shown)
- Athe rules that(18 more words not shown)
- Bthe rules that(19 more words not shown)
- CNobel Prizes in(12 more words not shown)
- Dthe evaluation of(9 more words not shown)
- ENobel Prizes are(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What happens when four scientists produce an important result together? If only three can share the prize for it, at least one contributor will be left out. Winston is pointing to a limit in what the award can recognize, not a lack of contribution by everyone who misses out.
Sanjay adds another way a contributor can be excluded: dying before the work is fully appreciated. A scientist's influence can be substantial even when the timing makes a prize impossible. Both speakers describe rules that can leave real scientific contributions unrecognized.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for agreement. I'd look for that shared limitation: receiving or not receiving a Nobel Prize doesn't give us a complete picture of a scientist's contribution.
Working the answers
- A
Sanjay identifies the rule excluding deceased people, but identifying a limitation doesn't automatically mean recommending this particular change. Winston doesn't even address the rule about deceased recipients. We need an agreement supported by both speakers, not a possible reform inspired by one speaker's example.
- B
Neither speaker compares science prizes with prizes in other fields or proposes different rules for them. They could agree that the science prizes leave contributors out without taking any position on whether other prizes should follow different rules.
- C
Winston mentions that science prizes recognize particular results, but doesn't recommend abandoning that practice. The problem he describes is the mismatch between a prize shared by at most three people and work produced by larger teams. That doesn't establish agreement on changing what the prizes recognize.
- D
These are concrete eligibility limits, not a claim that judging scientific achievement is highly subjective. A three-person maximum can exclude someone regardless of how clearly their contribution is established, and the living-recipient rule can exclude a widely admired scientist. Neither example requires disagreement over how to evaluate the work.
- ECorrect
The prizes can give an inaccurate picture of contributions because important contributors can go unrecognized. Winston's larger research team illustrates that problem, and Sanjay's scientist whose influence is appreciated after death illustrates it another way.
A contributor might even be left out of several prize-winning teams despite doing substantial work. The three-person cap doesn't tell us that the excluded person contributed nothing. Likewise, dying too early to receive a prize doesn't erase a contribution. E captures that shared concern; it doesn't claim that all prize winners are undeserving or that prizes tell us nothing at all.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.