PrepTest 147, Section 1, Question 18
A large survey of scientists found that almost(35 more words not shown)
The argument requires assuming which(4 more words not shown)
- AThe scientists surveyed(18 more words not shown)
- BThe scientists in(19 more words not shown)
- CAlmost all of(18 more words not shown)
- DThe sample is(10 more words not shown)
- EWang's Law has(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do these scientists even know what the Minsk Hypothesis says? They could accept Wang's Law and know the experimental results without realizing that the two conflict with another hypothesis.
What we’re looking for
People can hold inconsistent beliefs when they haven't noticed the inconsistency. Or these scientists might never have formed an opinion about Minsk at all. The argument moves from what their information conflicts with to what the scientists themselves reject. For that move to work, I'd expect a required assumption about their awareness of the conflict. Whether Wang's Law is actually true is a separate issue from what these people believe.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The argument needs the scientists generally to recognize the conflict. If they don't know that the experiment's results combined with Wang's Law contradict Minsk, possessing the first two pieces of information doesn't establish that they've rejected the third. This answer connects the logical conflict to the scientists' awareness of it, which is the missing step in the conclusion about their beliefs.
- B
The two groups can overlap substantially without being identical. Imagine one hundred scientists: ninety accept Wang's Law, and ninety know the experimental results. Those groups could share eighty people while each also contains ten people outside the other group. We would still have a large majority in both groups. The argument needs a large overlap, not two groups with identical membership.
- C
Knowing an experiment's results is different from knowing how those results were obtained. A scientist could understand the reported finding without knowing all the procedures used to produce it. The argument needs awareness of what the finding implies alongside Wang's Law, not detailed familiarity with the experimental method.
- D
The conclusion concerns most of the scientists surveyed, not most scientists everywhere or even throughout the field. The evidence is about that same surveyed group. A sample can be unrepresentative of the broader profession while still telling us something about the people actually in it. Representativeness isn't the missing connection here.
- E
We aren't trying to prove Wang's Law true. We're trying to infer what the surveyed scientists reject from what they accept and know. People can accept a mistaken claim and use it in forming other beliefs. The law's objective truth isn't required for this argument about their attitudes toward Minsk; their recognition of the conflict is what matters.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.