LSAT 152 – Section 2 – Question 20

LSAT 152 - Section 2 - Question 20

November 2018

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:11

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
PT152 S2 Q20
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
56%
165
B
29%
160
C
5%
155
D
2%
151
E
8%
158
149
160
170
 +Hardest 147.463 +SubsectionMedium

Pulford: Scientists who study the remains of ancient historical figures to learn about their health history need to first ask themselves if their investigation is a legitimate scientific inquiry or is motivated by mere curiosity. An investigation into a private matter such as health history is justified only if it is done for the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Varela: You forget that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry. Many great scientific discoveries were motivated by curiosity alone.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Pulford concludes that scientists who study the remains of ancient people to learn about their health history should ask whether their investigation is motivated by legitimate science or is motivated by curiosity. This is because Pulford believe that investigations into health history of historical figures can be justified only if it’s done for the purpose of advancing scientific knowledge.
Varela points out that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry, and that many great scientific discovered were motivated by only curiosity. (The implicit conclusion is that investigations into the healthy history of historical figures, even if motivated by mere curiosity, can still be a legitimate scientific inquiry.)

Describe Method of Reasoning
Varela questions a distinction Pulford drew between a study motivated by legitimate science and a study motivated only by curiosity.

A
contending that Pulford’s argument rests on an untenable distinction
Varela points out that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry. This blurs the distinction between a study motivated by scientific inquiry adn a study motivated by curiosity.
B
disputing the validity of a principle that Pulford explicitly states
The principle Pulford states is that investigations into individuals’ health is justified only if it’s for the advancement of science. Varela doesn’t dispute this principle. He broadens the scope of “for the advancement of science” to include studies motivated by curiosity.
C
offering a counterexample to a generalization in Pulford’s conclusion
Varela doesn’t bring up a counterexample. He doesn’t bring up a scientist who doesn’t need to ask whether their investigation is a legitimate scientific inquiry or is motivated by curiosity.
D
attempting to draw a distinction between two views that Pulford treats as a single view
Pulford brings up his own view that scientists need to ask themselves about the purpose of their study into historical figures’ health. This does not combine two views. And Varela does not try to draw a distinction; he tries to collapse a distinction made by Pulford.
E
maintaining that Pulford’s argument is based on inconsistent premises
Varela does not assert that Pulford’s premises contradict each other. He interprets a distinction made by Pulford (between studies motivated by science and those motivated by curiosity) in a way that suggests the distinction is blurred.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 152 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply