PrepTest 153, Section 3, Question 25
Ecological terms like "invasive species" invoke human cultural(42 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- APolice should not(30 more words not shown)
- BEnvironmental regulators should(22 more words not shown)
- COpinion writers should(30 more words not shown)
- DSoftware developers should(26 more words not shown)
- EPeople should be(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What comes to mind when something is called an invader? Probably an unwelcome arrival, perhaps one that doesn't belong and threatens the people already there. I can see how calling an organism 'invasive' could import that human judgment into a discussion of nature.
The author's concern is that the judgment arrives before the ecological evidence. An ecologist might start disliking the organism because of the label before finding out what it actually does. The recommendation is to avoid terms that encourage that kind of prejudgment.
I still have a practical question: what should we call these organisms instead? A replacement term would need to identify what we're discussing without bringing the same assumptions along. The author hasn't proposed one. That doesn't erase the possible influence of the words, but it's something I'd want addressed in carrying out the recommendation.
What we’re looking for
For the matching principle, focus on the stated reason for avoiding the language. We want words that carry assumptions from one setting into another and thereby shape someone's expectations about the thing being studied. An answer that merely recommends careful language may have a different reason for doing so.
Working the answers
- A
This initially looks possible. 'Thief' is a loaded description, and the police are being told not to use it. But the reason given is the suspect's official status before conviction, even when the evidence is strong. The original concern is that borrowed human standards influence a researcher's view before the relevant evidence is gathered. A's reason for avoiding the label doesn't closely match that mechanism. I'd keep looking for something more specific.
- B
This assigns the decision to legislators rather than regulators. It isn't about what assumptions a particular word brings to the subject. The recommendation could remain exactly the same if everyone used entirely neutral language; the objection concerns who has authority to make the decision.
- C
Unflattering language makes readers discount the opinion writer's own views. That is a reaction by the audience to the writer's language. The original warns that the language affects the researcher's opinion of the organism being studied. Both involve consequences of word choice, but the person affected and the judgment affected are different.
- DCorrect
Imagine a developer describes a program as 'thinking hard' when it takes a long time to process something. That description could encourage expectations drawn from how people think—for example, an expectation that the program will respond to an unfamiliar situation with humanlike understanding. The label hasn't established that ability.
This matches the original move. Cultural ideas attached to 'invasive' can shape an ecologist's expectations about an organism; psychological ideas attached to a program can shape a developer's expectations about its performance. Both recommendations aim to prevent the borrowed language from doing that work before the relevant evidence does.
- E
This warns that our guesses about other people's motives are often wrong. It doesn't identify a problem with words importing assumptions from a different setting. We could describe someone's motives in neutral language and still be mistaken about them. That is a different reason for being careful.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.