#28 - Specific Reference, Must Be True

[TigerJin]

I am not seeing how B is correct and C is wrong. B says it is impossible to bring about starting conditions that are exactly the same. And C says: it is impossible to produce starting conditions that are even approximately the same. So, we have exact vs approximate. Why does the riddled basin of attraction need to fail a reproducing an experiment exactly rather than approximately? It seems to me that c allows less room for error than B. Lines 6-7 say that the least amount of change will render the experiment unreplicable. So, being approximate in your replication would be an error, whereas if you are exact, then there should be no problem.

[Adam Tyson]

Hey Tiger, thanks for asking. Let's make sure we have the same understanding of the language being used here - that may be the issue.

In answer C, we talk about it being "impossible to produce starting conditions that are even approximately the same from one experiment to the next." What do they mean by that? They mean there's no way the starting conditions can ever even closely resemble each other. Every time they try to do an experiment, the starting conditions are radically different than the time before - no resemblance at all. That's not what we have in our riddled basins, right? We're talking about conditions that are virtually unchanged from one experiment to the next, but which have so many minute "weird" properties (zigs and zags, fractal edges) that it becomes really, really hard to predict what will happen from one experiment to the next. The starting conditions are the same, or almost the same, but the ability to predict is close to zero because of all those tiny zigs and zags.

Answer B says that we can't ever get the starting conditions to be identical every time. We might be off ever so slightly each time compared to the time before. Overall, the conditions may be identical or virtually so, but the tiniest variation could change everything. Maybe a difference in temperature of 1/1000th of a degree skews the results wildly, or maybe a slight alteration in the angle of light, or the height from which an object is dropped is changed imperceptibly. The starting conditions are close - really close! - but never perfectly identical. That's more like the riddled basin situation than C is, right?

I hope that clears it up!

[swong1267]

How come A is wrong? I was between A and B, but picked A, because I thought A meant that we think conditions are the same, even though they might not actually be.

[Adam Tyson]

Looks like you are adding some help to answer A, swong! That answer tells us that the starting conditions are, in fact, identical. What makes you think that they are not, or might not be? Accept the answer as written, and don't add to it or subtract from it. The starting conditions are the same, but the results are inconsistent - is there anything in that answer to suggest that there are inconsistencies analogous to the zigs and zags of a fractal boundary? Nope - just identical conditions with inconsistent results. That doesn't match up with our "metaphorical examples of riddled basins of attraction", and that's why answer A is not as good as answer B.

Don't help the answers! Take them as they are, and you'll be less likely to go astray.

[T.B.Justin]

For the correct answer choice (B), I think this is about the language "starting conditions" and "exactly the same."

Lines 14-21 describe the riddled basins of attraction phenomena.

Lines 23-25 says, more or less, its not only the exact destination that is sometimes impossible to predict, but as well as, determining which body of water it will end up in.

Lines 47-57 I think is the authors skepticism over the basis(foundation) of scientific research.


Where is the evidence that its impossible to bring about starting conditions that are exactly the same?

Lines 6-8, "..even the least change in the starting conditions-no matter how small, inadvertent, or undetectable," does this imply the starting conditions are impossible to bring about a second time?

[Jay Donnell]

Hey T.B.!

This is a famously nasty passage! I began teaching LSAT classes way back in 2006 and I still remember just how badly this passage crushed the students who took that September 2006 exam.

This question plays off of the major theme of what is implied by Sommerer and Ott, which is that a failure to replicate experimental results shouldn't be taken as a sure sign that the first results were not credible. This is because even "the least change in the starting conditions--no matter how small, inadvertent, or undetectable--can alter results radically."

The key phrasing in that sentence, especially with the word undetectable, implies that it would be impossible to always guarantee the exact same starting conditions every time you run the experiment.

So it is, as you spotted, that portion of lines 6-8 that offer sufficient support to validate the impossibility referred to in the correct response of B.

Hope that helps!

[Nicholas Noyes]

Hey Tiger, thanks for asking. Let's make sure we have the same understanding of the language being used here - that may be the issue.

In answer C, we talk about it being "impossible to produce starting conditions that are even approximately the same from one experiment to the next." What do they mean by that? They mean there's no way the starting conditions can ever even closely resemble each other. Every time they try to do an experiment, the starting conditions are radically different than the time before - no resemblance at all. That's not what we have in our riddled basins, right? We're talking about conditions that are virtually unchanged from one experiment to the next, but which have so many minute "weird" properties (zigs and zags, fractal edges) that it becomes really, really hard to predict what will happen from one experiment to the next. The starting conditions are the same, or almost the same, but the ability to predict is close to zero because of all those tiny zigs and zags.

Answer B says that we can't ever get the starting conditions to be identical every time. We might be off ever so slightly each time compared to the time before. Overall, the conditions may be identical or virtually so, but the tiniest variation could change everything. Maybe a difference in temperature of 1/1000th of a degree skews the results wildly, or maybe a slight alteration in the angle of light, or the height from which an object is dropped is changed imperceptibly. The starting conditions are close - really close! - but never perfectly identical. That's more like the riddled basin situation than C is, right?

I hope that clears it up!

Thank you that clears it up. It aligns with the part of the passage "the least change in starting conditions- no matter how small, inadvertent, or undetectable - can alter results radically"??...I was down to answer choices B & C as well.

[Adam Tyson]

You're welcome! We're always happy to see that our explanations continue to make sense and be helpful even years later. That's why we're here!

[Tami Taylor]

Hello,

I know this was addressed in an earlier post, but I am having trouble distinguishing (B) from the incorrect answer, (C). It seems like the biggest difference between (B) and (C) is "exactly the same starting conditions" vs "approximately the same starting conditions." Is (B) correct because, in the first paragraph ("...even the least change in the starting conditions -- no matter how small..."), we can infer the author is discussing the criticality of starting conditions that are exactly the same (versus approximately) the same when it comes to replicating results?

Thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Tami,

Yes, that's it exactly. That's why answer choice C is incorrect. The passage doesn't support the notion that it is impossible to produce "approximately the same" starting conditions in our experiments, as Adam very helpfully outlines above.

Great work!