#11- One approach to the question of which objects discussed

[rachue]

Hi, I'm trying to understand this question. I think I'm really just getting tripped up by the language.

This is how I diagrammed it.

P: real object <---> posited by most explanatorily powerful theory (MEPT)
C: premise is flawed ---> most theories not MEPT

Is this correct? I'm still having a hard time understanding why B is correct here... I don't really see all of the reasoning. I'd appreciate any help!

[Nikki Siclunov]

This stimulus is structured as an argument/counterargument, and can be summarized as follows:

Approach: Real objects are all and only those entities posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of science:

The conditional language underlying this approach can be diagrammed as follows:

Real Object --> Entity posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of science;

Entity posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of science --> Real Object

Counterpremise: Most scientific theories contain entities posited solely on theoretical grounds.

Conclusion: The approach is flawed (i.e. not all entities posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of science can be considered real).

The principle that most helps justify the conclusion would need to establish that a strictly theoretical entity cannot be considered real. Answer choice (B) provides a logical connection between the counterpremise and the conclusion of the argument, as is therefore correct. If objects posited for theoretical reasons only should never be designated as real, then at least some of the objects posited by the scientific theories mentioned in the last sentence cannot be considered real. This would invalidate any approach suggesting that all entities posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of science are real, and as a result strengthen the counterargument against that approach.

Hope this helps!

[rachue]

Thanks Nikki. This was the only question I got wrong in this section. Would you say that the quickest way to get to the correct answer here would be through the diagramming you just did or is there a quicker way? It still is quite a confusing and time-consuming question to me even with the explanation and diagramming.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Diagramming isn't always necessary, but it helps with understanding the logical structure of the argument. This is a question that is above-average in difficulty, so it's reasonable to take a bit longer to solve it.

[rachue]

OK, thanks!

[vs1988]

I had a great amount of difficulty with this stimulus. I had to read it more than once, and still did not understand its meaning and could not detangle the logic behind it. Certainly not the best circumstances for going into the answer choices and I wasted a lot of time on this question. Based on the % of people that pick each answer choice, it seems that I am not the only one.

I was hoping someone could explain this stimulus to me, and what the best approach would be.
Also, on a more general note, could you please advise what's the best strategy / approach when I come across a LR question that just doesn't click (in which case paraphrasing obviously might not be an option)?

[Nikki Siclunov]

When the stimulus is confusing, focus on its structure. Here, the structure of the argument is conditional:

One way to figure out what is "real" in science is this:

Real Entities Posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of science

But, the author objects, this approach is flawed. Why? Because most scientific theories contain entities posited only on theoretical grounds:

Most scientific theories Theoretical Entities

For the author to argue that the initial approach is flawed, she is assuming that it is impossible for a scientific theory to contain entities that are both real and purely theoretical. This prephrase is rather crude, if you will, but it helps narrow down the list of contenders to answer choice (B): objects posited for theoretical reasons only should never be designated as real.

When you get "stuck" in a question like that, focus on the structure and not the topic. When all else fails, move on to another question and return to it at a later time. Taking a "step back" can often help you see the forest from the trees

Hope this helps!

[vs1988]

This helps a lot! Thanks so much!

[Dajpol]

I was able to untangle the stimulus, and narrowed down the answer choices to two contenders B and E. I chose E, and find myself confused as to why I chose E, as odd as that sounds. Can you tell me why E is incorrect?

Thank you!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Dajpol,

Thanks for your question. Answer choice (E) is the Opposite answer. Answer choice (E) claims that "Only objects posited by explanatorily powerful theories should be designated as real" (Real Posited by explanatorily powerful theories). This is consistent with the approach outlined in the first sentence—an approach the author promptly rejects in the second sentence. Thus, answer choice (E) contradicts the author's conclusion, rather than justifying it.

Hope this helps! Let me know.

Thanks,