PrepTest 156, Section 4, Question 14
Science writer: Scientists often accept a scientific argument(40 more words not shown)
The science writer's argument is(9 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(12 more words not shown)
- Btakes for granted(22 more words not shown)
- Cfails to consider(22 more words not shown)
- Dfails to consider(17 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Everyone doing something doesn't make it harmless.
I understand why scientists might use social cues. Nobody has unlimited time to evaluate every paper, so the views of other scientists and the reputation of the author can help someone decide what to examine or believe. But a respected person can still be wrong. Relying too heavily on reputation could make researchers accept a claim they should question.
The science writer answers that concern by pointing out that social factors influence every human endeavor. How does that show they don't hurt science? The same habit could be widespread and harmful. Or it could be useful in some activities and harmful in others.
What we’re looking for
The flaw is the jump from common elsewhere to harmless here. We need evidence about what this behavior does to scientific work, not just evidence that people behave similarly in other settings.
Working the answers
- A
The writer defends social reasons as not detrimental. That doesn't mean the writer considers them the only legitimate reasons to accept an argument. Scientific evidence could also be a legitimate reason without conflicting with anything said here. 'Only' adds a restriction the argument doesn't use.
- BCorrect
Translate the abstract wording into this argument. The 'behavior' is accepting claims for social reasons. The 'particular endeavor' is science, and obstructing its goals would mean harming scientific work. The writer decides that this behavior isn't harmful by pointing to how common similar behavior is elsewhere. Its prevalence elsewhere doesn't settle its effect on science.
- C
Scientists also considering relevant evidence could make their reliance on social cues less worrying. That possibility doesn't expose the flaw in an argument defending the practice as harmless. The problem is that the writer's actual evidence—similar behavior in other activities—doesn't establish that conclusion.
- D
Whether scientists notice their reliance on social cues isn't the question the argument must resolve. A practice could help or hurt scientific work whether or not people recognize that they engage in it. We need to examine the consequences, not merely awareness of the behavior.
- E
This moves in the opposite direction from the argument. The writer doesn't start with harmlessness in science and extend it to other activities. The writer starts with the behavior's presence in other activities and uses that to conclude it isn't harmful to science. E misidentifies both the starting point and the inference.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.