PrepTest 30 Logical Reasoning Problems, Scored 166

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

PrepTest 30 Logical Reasoning Problems, Scored 166

Postby secretad » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:46 pm

Still missing too many reading comprehension questions (-7). Anyway, this is about the logical reasoning questions I would like help with from PrepTest 30.

Section #2, the first LR section of this test, #26, the last problem. The problem about the alchemists and it is a flawed reasoning question.

I did not like any of the answer choices to this question. I do not see how this is flawed reasoning. Hear me out on this.

There is a principle in this argument. It is that people ought (should) to take into account a discipline's blemished origin when assessing the scientific value of that discipline.

The argument then takes chemistry as an example.

It says that it must be considered that many of its landmark results were obtained by alchemists. The argument then talks about how alchemists were superstitious and their appeals to magic dominated the early development of chemical theory.

How is this flawed? We have a principle that states we should take into account a discipline's origin. This person decided to choose chemistry. This person tells us about the origin of chemistry.

The answer choice (B) states that it fails to consider how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists mentioned.

Who cares about current theories and practices? Any discipline could have been inserted into the argument besides chemistry and I would assume that just about every discipline has different theories and practices than when it was at its origin.

Even if they did differ by a long shot, does that necessarily mean that it was not the origin? I do not believe so.

User avatar
510Chicken
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: PrepTest 30 Logical Reasoning Problems, Scored 166

Postby 510Chicken » Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:31 am

(A) is wrong because we don't care about fields with unblemished records. Not the topic.
(B) is correct because the argument made in the question is that "blemished origins" adversely affect results today, or says something negative about the field today. But if current theories/practices differ in fundamental ways, then any connection between chemistry's past and its present are superficial at best. That is, chemistry may have emerged from superstitious beliefs, but if it is currently rigorously examined and tested, how do previous beliefs undermine it's scientific value today?
(C) Meh. Nothing is contradicted.
(D) is no good because the author trying to say that disciplines with stupid origins are suspect, not the other way around.
(E) Nope.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests