LSAT 111 – Section 4 – Question 18

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 18

October 2001

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:07

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT111 S4 Q18
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Part v. Whole +PvW
A
5%
159
B
76%
166
C
14%
161
D
2%
160
E
3%
159
138
150
163
 +Medium 144.86 +SubsectionEasier

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Philosopher: Scientists talk about the pursuit of truth, but, like most people, they are self-interested. Accordingly, the professional activities of most scientists are directed toward personal career enhancement, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth. Hence, the activities of the scientific community are largely directed toward enhancing the status of that community as a whole, and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth.

Summarize Argument

The philosopher concludes that the scientific community’s activities are mainly about enhancing the community’s status, and only incidentally about pursuing truth. She supports this by saying that scientists are self-interested and most scientists’ professional activities are mainly about enhancing their personal careers, and only incidentally about pursuing truth.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is a cookie-cutter “part to whole” flaw, where the author takes a characteristic of one part or parts of a group and assumes it to be true of the group as a whole.

The philosopher takes a premise about most scientists— that they’re motivated by career-enhancement rather than truth— and uses it to draw a conclusion about the scientific community as a whole— that it too is motivated by status-enhancement rather than truth.

A
improperly infers that each and every scientist has a certain characteristic from the premise that most scientists have that characteristic

The philosopher does draw an improper inference from the premise that most scientists have a certain characteristic. But that inference is about the scientific community as a whole, not about “each and every scientist.”

B
improperly draws an inference about the scientific community as a whole from a premise about individual scientists

The philosopher improperly infers that the scientific community as a whole is motivated by status-enhancement rather than truth from a premise stating that most individual scientists are motivated by these things.

C
presumes, without giving justification, that the aim of personal career enhancement never advances the pursuit of truth

The author never assumes this. In fact, she allows for the possibility that the aim of career enhancement can advance the pursuit of truth by saying that scientific activities are directed “only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth.” She just claims that truth isn’t the goal.

D
illicitly takes advantage of an ambiguity in the meaning of “self-interested”

The author simply doesn’t make this mistake because she uses the term “self-interested” clearly in her premise about most scientists.

E
improperly draws an inference about a cause from premises about its effects

The philosopher doesn’t use causal reasoning in her argument; she never argues that one thing causes another. So (E) can’t describe her flaw.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply