LSAT 141 – Section 2 – Question 05

LSAT 141 - Section 2 - Question 05

September 2014

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:05

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
PT141 S2 Q05
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
1%
155
B
0%
145
C
2%
154
D
95%
163
E
3%
152
129
137
145
 +Easier 146.882 +SubsectionMedium

Science writer: Lemaître argued that the universe began with the explosion of a “primeval atom,” a singular point of infinite gravity in space and time. If this is correct, our current observations should reveal galaxies accelerating away from one another. This is precisely what we observe. Yet because there is another theory—the oscillating universe theory—that makes exactly this same prediction, Lemaître’s theory must be considered inadequate.

Summarize Argument
The writer argues that Lemaître’s is inadequate because, although its prediction matches our current observations of galaxies speeding away from each other, the oscillating universe theory makes exactly this same prediction.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The writer presents two theories—Lemaître's theory and the oscillating universe theory—that both predicted our current observations. She then concludes that Lemaître's theory is inadequate just because the oscillating universe theory makes the same prediction.

However, the writer gives no real reason to dismiss Lemaître's theory. What if it is adequate? What if the two theories are actually complementary? Simply pointing out that another theory makes the same prediction isn't enough to prove that Lemaître's theory is inadequate.

A
The conclusion is derived partly from assertions attributed to a purported expert whose credibility is not established.
Presumably Lemaître is a credible expert, but either way, the writer’s argument doesn’t rely on his credibility or the credibility of any other expert. Instead, she addresses the accuracy of two theories’ predictions and the inadequacy of Lemaître's theory.
B
The conclusion is based on a shift in meaning of a key term from one part of the argument to another part.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the argument uses the same term in two different ways. The writer doesn’t make this mistake; all of her terms are used clearly and consistently throughout her argument.
C
The science writer takes for granted the existence of a causal connection between observed phenomena.
The writer doesn’t assume that one observed phenomenon caused another. In fact, she only addresses one observed phenomenon in the first place— galaxies accelerating away from each other.
D
The science writer fails to see that one theory’s correctly predicting observed data cannot itself constitute evidence against an alternative theory that also does this.
In other words, the fact that the oscillating universe theory also predicted the observed data doesn't prove that Lemaître's theory is inadequate.
E
The science writer presumes, without providing justification, that there are only two possible explanations for the phenomena in question.
The writer never assumes that Lemaître's theory and the oscillating universe theory are the only explanations for why galaxies are accelerating away from each other. Instead, she assumes that because both theories predicted this phenomenon, Lemaître's theory must be inadequate.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 141 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply