#21 - The proper way to plan a scientific project is first

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

The argument sets out a principle: that the proper way to plan a scientific project is to first decide its goal, then find the best way of meeting that goal. Then it argues that the US space station project violates this principle. The goal of such a project, after the end of the Cold War, was to conduct limited-gravity experiments. However, such experiments can be done in other (though not necessarily better) ways. The flaw here is that from the evidence provided, it is unclear whether the above principle is violated. Namely, the mere fact that such experiments can be done in other ways does not violate the principle. It is only when these other ways are superior that the principle is violated.

Answer choice (A) The argument does not make an ad hominem attack. It does not base its attack upon the source of the opposite position.

Answer choice (B) The argument here is not circular. The argument sets out a clear principle and tries unsuccessfully to meet it.

Answer choice (C) The argument does not blame any party for not foreseeing the end of the Cold War.

Answer choice (D) The argument does not contradict itself. The statements it advances are consistent, but the evidence it cites simply does not rise to the level of proving the proposition set forth.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The argument points to evidence of the existence of a shortcoming—that the experiments can be done in other ways. However, this is not a fatal flaw, and thus does not violate the principle, because it has not been shown those other ways are superior to conducting the experiments using the space station project.

[abares]

Can you explain the use of the word "fatal" in this question and on the LSAT in general? It threw me off because I was interpreting it to mean "deadly."

I've been thrown off by the use of words like this on a few other questions. Is there a list available that catalogs words that are common terms used in logic that may have different meanings in logic/LSAT context than as they're commonly used?

Thanks!
Annie

[David Boyle]

Can you explain the use of the word "fatal" in this question and on the LSAT in general? It threw me off because I was interpreting it to mean "deadly."

I've been thrown off by the use of words like this on a few other questions. Is there a list available that catalogs words that are common terms used in logic that may have different meanings in logic/LSAT context than as they're commonly used?

Thanks!
Annie

Hello Annie,

The meaning is more or less the usual meaning, "deadly" or "utterly destructive". Which applies in this problem, because even though the original Cold War reason of the program is not being followed, that "flaw" (not following the original reason) is not necessarily a fatal flaw, i.e., it may not doom the space station completely.
And, I'm not sure if there is such a word list as you describe. PowerScore materials sometimes do make differentiations, though; for example, in common parlance, "Either Ann or Bill is going to the party" might tend to mean that only one is going, but on the LSAT, it leaves room for both to go, not just one. So, "either/or" is shown to have a special meaning for the LSAT.

Hope this helps,
David

[abares]

Ok, thank you that makes sense!

[adlindsey]

Was the US space station already built, or was it in the process of being built? For some reason I get that it was already built and they changed it's purpose.

[adlindsey]

How is one suppose to infer that shortcoming is the experiments can be done in other ways? And what is meant by "However, this is not a fatal flaw"?

[David Boyle]

Was the US space station already built, or was it in the process of being built? For some reason I get that it was already built and they changed it's purpose.

Hello adlindsey,

It seems it has not been built yet.

Hope this helps,
David

[David Boyle]

How is one suppose to infer that shortcoming is the experiments can be done in other ways? And what is meant by "However, this is not a fatal flaw"?

Hello,

Since this is a Flaw question, one should look for a shortcoming. The initial principle is, "The proper way to plan a scientific project is first to decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal." So the new "purpose ..., of conducting limited-gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way" looks like a shortcoming, since those experiments might be done better "in an alternative way", for all we know, and we want "the best way" for the space station.

And, looking at what the Administrator says: "Answer choice (E): ... The argument points to evidence of the existence of a shortcoming—that the experiments can be done in other ways. However, this is not a fatal flaw, and thus does not violate the principle, because it has not been shown those other ways are superior to conducting the experiments using the space station project." I.e., maybe the space station is still the best way to do the experiments.

David

[egarcia193]

Hi

I had trouble with this one I understood the stimulus but the answer choices gave me a lot of trouble I was between C D and E and I ended up picking C because I couldn't understand what E was even trying to say. Why is E ultimately better than C and what is it really saying I am trying to understand it so if I see this language again I will know what it means.

[Adam Tyson]

Answer E is a classic "some evidence" answer choice, egarcia, which is when some evidence against a position is taken to prove that position is false, or some evidence for a position is taken to prove that position is true. In this case it's the former- the author has some evidence against building the space station (in that it is not being done in the "proper" way - the new goal is limited gravity experimentation and the station is not necessarily the best way to do that; the goal should have come before the decision to build the station, but here the goal came after), and he takes that as definitive proof that the station should not be built. He has identified a shortcoming (a weakness) and acted as if that shortcoming was fatal (destroyed all reason for building the station).

The author never faults (blames) anyone for failing to foresee something, like the ending of the cold way perhaps, and no self-contradiction is present (wherein the author might have offered evidence in favor of building the station and then claimed this evidence supports not building it). Answer C and D do not follow the "Fact Test" as applied to this Flaw question, in that the things they describe do not conform to the facts of the stimulus because they are not in the stimulus, so they must be rejected.

Don't ever be afraid to select an answer that you do not entirely understand! As long as you aren't sure about it, it remains a contender, and if you have eliminated all other answer choices as losers you must select whatever is left. That's what picking the "best" answer is about! If you are able to eliminate C and D for the reasons given here, and you are stuck with E, an answer you just didn't quite grasp, you should absolutely pick E and move along quickly to the next question. Waste no time grasping for understanding, but take your wins where you can get them and go get yourself some more!