- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:24 pm
#22649
Question #2: Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (C).
Here’s a catch-22: When explaining new developments in science to a wide audience, science publications need to “dumb down” their language, which comes at the expense of accurate reporting. But if they try to be more scientifically “accurate,” these publications fail to reach a wide audience. The solution? According to the author, the solution is to give up trying to explain new developments in science to a wide audience. (It is no secret that the LSAT is fairly elitist in its bias against popular opinion, which comes through in this particular question.)
At a more abstract level, this is an argument where the author weighs two competing objectives, and concludes that one of them takes priority over the other. We are asked to identify a principle, that, if true, would strengthen this conclusion. Note that the question stem is a Strengthen—PR, not a Justify—PR because of the presence of the word “most” in the question stem, which weakens the force required of the correct answer. In a Strengthen—PR question, the correct answer will provide a premise that, when applied to the specific situation in the stimulus, helps support the conclusion.
As a general rule, when prephrasing a principle that can be used to draw the conclusion, look for any logical gaps or deficiencies in the argument that need to be fixed. Here, the conclusion lacks any support: one of two competing objectives is prioritized over the other, but the author fails to explain why. The correct answer choice must therefore force this choice, ideally by establishing that accuracy in reporting trumps popular outreach. Answer choice (C) contains a statement that is closest to this prephrase.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice seems attractive, because it alludes to a solution to the dilemma described in the stimulus: publications should balance the use of metaphors with more rigorous writing. However, because this principle would lead to a vastly different conclusion from the one suggested in the stimulus, answer choice (A) is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice contains a statement of fact, which is not a principle. Just because more recent developments are harder to explain to a wide audience does not mean that they should not be explained to such an audience at all.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, as it properly determines that accuracy in scientific reporting is more important than reaching a wide audience. Well, since it is impossible to do both, this principle would immediately force the conclusion that popular scientific publications give up trying to explain new developments in science to a wide audience.
As a side note, when you come across a double-negative (“it is better to fail to reach a wide audience than to be inaccurate”), immediately simplify it and deduce the positive statement—“it is better to be accurate than to reach a wide audience.” Test makers are notorious for using double- and triple-negatives in their language, which is clearly an attempt to confuse and derail the reader. Do not fall into their trap! Slow down and simplify such statements before examining their significance in context.
Answer choice (D): This is the Opposite answer. If reaching a wide audience is more important than being accurate, this would undermine the author’s position and justify the opposite conclusion to the one reached.
Answer choice (E): The fact that some rigorous explanations of scientific concepts require the use of metaphors has no bearing on the issue at hand. The author neither assumes nor rejects the view that metaphors could play a role conveying science accurately.
Here’s a catch-22: When explaining new developments in science to a wide audience, science publications need to “dumb down” their language, which comes at the expense of accurate reporting. But if they try to be more scientifically “accurate,” these publications fail to reach a wide audience. The solution? According to the author, the solution is to give up trying to explain new developments in science to a wide audience. (It is no secret that the LSAT is fairly elitist in its bias against popular opinion, which comes through in this particular question.)
At a more abstract level, this is an argument where the author weighs two competing objectives, and concludes that one of them takes priority over the other. We are asked to identify a principle, that, if true, would strengthen this conclusion. Note that the question stem is a Strengthen—PR, not a Justify—PR because of the presence of the word “most” in the question stem, which weakens the force required of the correct answer. In a Strengthen—PR question, the correct answer will provide a premise that, when applied to the specific situation in the stimulus, helps support the conclusion.
As a general rule, when prephrasing a principle that can be used to draw the conclusion, look for any logical gaps or deficiencies in the argument that need to be fixed. Here, the conclusion lacks any support: one of two competing objectives is prioritized over the other, but the author fails to explain why. The correct answer choice must therefore force this choice, ideally by establishing that accuracy in reporting trumps popular outreach. Answer choice (C) contains a statement that is closest to this prephrase.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice seems attractive, because it alludes to a solution to the dilemma described in the stimulus: publications should balance the use of metaphors with more rigorous writing. However, because this principle would lead to a vastly different conclusion from the one suggested in the stimulus, answer choice (A) is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice contains a statement of fact, which is not a principle. Just because more recent developments are harder to explain to a wide audience does not mean that they should not be explained to such an audience at all.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, as it properly determines that accuracy in scientific reporting is more important than reaching a wide audience. Well, since it is impossible to do both, this principle would immediately force the conclusion that popular scientific publications give up trying to explain new developments in science to a wide audience.
As a side note, when you come across a double-negative (“it is better to fail to reach a wide audience than to be inaccurate”), immediately simplify it and deduce the positive statement—“it is better to be accurate than to reach a wide audience.” Test makers are notorious for using double- and triple-negatives in their language, which is clearly an attempt to confuse and derail the reader. Do not fall into their trap! Slow down and simplify such statements before examining their significance in context.
Answer choice (D): This is the Opposite answer. If reaching a wide audience is more important than being accurate, this would undermine the author’s position and justify the opposite conclusion to the one reached.
Answer choice (E): The fact that some rigorous explanations of scientific concepts require the use of metaphors has no bearing on the issue at hand. The author neither assumes nor rejects the view that metaphors could play a role conveying science accurately.
science and NO audience 
