PrepTest 152, Section 2, Question 20
Pulford: Scientists who study the remains of ancient(70 more words not shown)
Varela responds to Pulford's argument(1 more words not shown)
- Acontending that Pulford's(6 more words not shown)
- Bdisputing the validity(7 more words not shown)
- Coffering a counterexample(6 more words not shown)
- Dattempting to draw(12 more words not shown)
- Emaintaining that Pulford's(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't curiosity lead to legitimate science? Someone could start by wondering about an ancient ruler's health and end up discovering something scientifically useful. Being curious doesn't, by itself, make the investigation pointless.
That's Varela's objection too. Pulford asks researchers to separate legitimate inquiry from mere curiosity, but Varela points out that curiosity alone has motivated important discoveries. The two needn't be competing explanations for why a scientist investigates something.
What we’re looking for
We're describing Varela's response. The attack is on Pulford's attempt to draw that dividing line. We don't have to settle the separate question of when investigating someone's health history is justified.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
An 'untenable distinction' is a separation that doesn't hold up. Pulford treats legitimate scientific inquiry and curiosity as different alternatives for evaluating these investigations. Varela replies that curiosity can be the starting point of legitimate scientific inquiry, so the distinction doesn't do the work Pulford needs it to do.
- B
Pulford's explicit principle requires an investigation of a private matter to be done for the advancement of scientific knowledge. Varela needn't reject that requirement. The response is that curiosity can motivate work that advances knowledge. Varela challenges how Pulford separates the motives, rather than saying that the stated requirement is false.
- C
The discoveries provide evidence against Pulford's distinction, but they aren't counterexamples showing that an investigation can be justified without advancing scientific knowledge. In fact, great scientific discoveries fit that advancement requirement nicely. The examples show that curiosity and legitimate inquiry can go together; they don't establish the exception to Pulford's conclusion that this choice describes.
- D
This gets the response backward. Pulford is the one separating inquiry from curiosity. Varela argues that they can go together. Varela isn't introducing a new division between things that Pulford has treated as one.
- E
Varela doesn't show that two of Pulford's premises contradict each other. The objection is that Pulford draws an unjustified distinction. An argument can make that mistake without containing two claims that cannot both be true.
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.