#7 - Scientists are sometimes said to assume that something

[Kdup]

Hi Powerscoe,

So, I missed this question. I thought the answer was C. After reading the stimulus I figured that the scientist cannot both assume something is not the case and assume something is the case without contradicting themselves.

[nicholaspavic]

Hi Kdup,

Yes, correct! This one can be tricky. Please let us know if you understand or if you have any other specific question.

Thanks!

[LSAT2018]

Given the answer (B) does implausible consequences suggest a contradiction?
And is answer (C) wrong because the second statement cannot be taken to be true?

How is the answer (B) and not (C)? Can I request for an explanation for the two answers?
Thanks in advance!

[James Finch]

Hi LSAT2018,

The key to Method questions like this is to abstract the reasoning in the stimulus and use that abstraction to prephrase an answer. The logical elements in the prephrase should then match up 1:1 with the correct answer choice, even if the wording is a bit different. Here we are given a statement that the stimulus author is seeking to prove is false. How does the author attempt to do this? They concoct a scenario in which scientists would be simultaneously assuming opposite, mutually exclusive things about food additives. So the statement is argued to be false because its logical implications would lead to logical contradictions, and assume that scientists would not abide these contradictions.

With answer choice (C), we run into a problem when a second true statement is introduced into the mix. The stimulus is only concerned with the single statement about scientists' assumptions and the hypothetical implications arising from that statement. There is no second statement taken as true, so we can safely discard this as an incorrect choice.

Answer choice (B) correctly deals with the method of using implications/consequences as premises, but does throw a wrench in with the adjective "implausible." This works, however, when we factor in the assumption present in the last sentence; in the author of the stimulus's mind, it is implausible that scientists would ever simultaneously assume two contradictory things to be true, ie that a food additive is both safe and not safe. Because the author believes this to be impossible, the argument relies upon the implausible consequences (scientists assuming the additives both safe and not safe) to argue the statement is false.

Hope this clears things up!

[tkt25!]

Hello!

I, too, chose C and eliminated B, actually, because of the wording "implausible consequences." However, I am still confused, even after reading the posts on this forum, why B is correct. I understand that C, as explained, introduces this idea of a second statement, which is incorrect, as we are just looking at a general abstract statement that scientists make assumptions. If someone could please explain in detail how B is correct and how to debunk the specific language in B, that would be awesome!

Thank you!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi tkt,

As James mentions in his earlier post (Post #4), the first step in solving a Method of Reasoning question is understanding the reasoning in the argument and prephrasing an abstract description of the reasoning before looking at the specific answers.

Here, the argument is attempting to show that the claim that "scientists are sometimes said to assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case" is false. The conclusion of this argument is "so this characterization of scientists is clearly wrong," and the characterization that is wrong specifically refers to the first sentence in the stimulus.

As for how the argument tries to show the claim is false, the argument uses a hypothetical example of determining whether a food additive is safe or unsafe, and then applies that claim to the hypothetical example. In other words, if the claim that "scientists ... assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case" were true, then, in this hypothetical, it would lead to scientists believing in two ideas that directly contradict each other. Since that result (scientists believing in two ideas that directly contradict each other) would be unlikely, problematic, possibly even absurd, etc., then the original claim cannot be true.

Answer B best captures the description of the reasoning above. The "implausible consequences" refer to scientists believing in two ideas that directly contradict each other, specifically scientists believing that the food additive is both safe and unsafe at the same time, which is a logical contradiction/impossible.