#23 - Television network executive: Some scientists have

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)

This executive takes issue with those who claim that televisions depicting the paranormal impede scientific understanding, saying that such claims are baseless. This conclusion is based on a single premise: the paranormal has been used dramatically throughout history, and yet scientific knowledge has advanced.

The problem with this premise is that it doesn’t really respond to the referenced claims. That is, even if knowledge continues to advance, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the scientific knowledge of the populace isn’t being impeded.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, the author fails to consider that as scientific knowledge continues to advance, references to the paranormal may still continue to impede.

Answer choice (B): While it is common on the LSAT to see the flaw described by this answer choice, this is not the flaw present in the television executive’s argument, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): The argument regards the questions of whether paranormal reference impedes the scientific knowledge of the populace, so “indirect” effects do not come into play.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice does not describe the flaw present in the stimulus, so it cannot be correct. The author does not raise the question of whether scientific knowledge affects paranormal references, so this consideration is irrelevant.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice introduces the idea of increasing pervasiveness of paranormal references—this is never asserted, so this cannot be the answer choice that we seek.

[lsatstudier]

Hi,

I just finished my last question of the extra Flaw questions and am still feeling slightly uncertain that I will determine the right answer on the actual test. Would you have any advice for approaching these type of questions or where I can find more practice questions?

For this particular question, I am not sure why this answer is A. When I read the stimulus, I first thought this was an appeal to emotions but soon realized that this was not one of my answer choices.

Thank you very much in advance!

[David Boyle]

Hi,

I just finished my last question of the extra Flaw questions and am still feeling slightly uncertain that I will determine the right answer on the actual test. Would you have any advice for approaching these type of questions or where I can find more practice questions?

For this particular question, I am not sure why this answer is A. When I read the stimulus, I first thought this was an appeal to emotions but soon realized that this was not one of my answer choices.

Thank you very much in advance!

Hello lsatstudier,

For Flaw questions, study the materials and try to remember the various types of flaws and how to to deal with them. On practice tests, there will undoubtedly be more flaw questions.
As for answer A, it is true that science has advanced despite centuries of ghost stories. But maybe science is not advancing as fast as it could, since maybe all the paranormal TV shows are holding it back.

Hope this helps,
David

[LSATer]

Hi,

I may be overthinking this. But how is it that scientific knowledge of the populace steadily advances, while at the same time scientific knowledge of the populace is being impeded?

Answer A is basically saying both phenomenons can be true...but how is that so? Would this not be a contradiction?

Thank you,

LSATer

[Adam Tyson]

Only if you interpret "impeded" as meaning "stopped", LSATer. But to impede something is only to hinder it, to slow it down some. For example, "I'm making my way across town, but the snow is impeding my progress." I can make progress (science can advance) even while something is slowing it down. In other words, I'm progressing, but I could be progressing faster!

The author in the stimulus is suggesting that because science has advanced, nothing could have been getting in the way of it going even faster. He has failed to consider that it could have been advancing even faster were it not being hindered by superstitious beliefs encouraged by dramatists' use of spirits and ghosts in their stories.

[deck1134]

Hi PowerScore,

Sorry for the rush of questions.

I am not really sure how to adjudicate between A and C. While I understand that "indirect" effects aren't a prefect answer, wouldn't they nonetheless expose a flaw in the conclusion? Can we assume that the stimulus doesn't ever want indirect effects?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

"Indirectly affect" is not the biggest problem with this answer, Deck. I think the bigger problems are "pervasiveness" (not an issue in this argument) and "does not impede the latter" (because we are trying to show that maybe it DOES impede it!)

But you are right that "indirect" is something of a problem with this answer, too, because the author never argued that these programs are not a problem because they have no direct impact. If he had, then "but they could have an indirect impact" would be a good description of a flaw. However, he only argued that they are not a problem because science is advancing steadily anyway, which fails to consider that it could be doing so even faster and easier than it is.