#20 - Pulford: Scientists who study the remains of ancient

[ShannonOh22]

Pulford did give us a principle, which is also his opinion, and that's the last sentence of the stimulus. He thinks that it is a general rule that an inquiry into someone's health history is only okay if it's for the advancement of scientific knowledge.

The problem with answer B is that Varela does NOT dispute this principle. He never says anything like "no, you can do that kind of inquiry without caring about science." Rather, he says that curiosity IS about advancing scientific knowledge, and so that it fits into the principle.

Answer choice B says Varela disputes the validity of a principle Pulford explicitly states. As you clarified (contrary to what Robert indicated in his explanation), Pulford does in fact give us a principle in the last sentence of his argument. Varela indeed disputes the validity of this principle when he notes that scientific inquiry stems from curiosity...therefore investigations into health history can be justified when performed out of curiosity.

My struggle with the above is not uncommon on the LSAT - the writers intentionally throw out words like "untenable" in the correct answer and "principle" in an incorrect answer to trip us up....but couldn't a similarly persnickety argument be made for the fact that Varela disputes the validity of Pullman's principle??

[Robert Carroll]

Shannon,

As I said in my original post, "there is no explicitly-stated principle that Pulford states and Varela disputes." Pulford DOES state a principle and Varela DOES dispute something, but those two things are not identical. Hence, there is nothing that is both an explicitly-stated principle of Pulford AND something Varela disputes. Varela disputes the implicit distinction.

Robert Carroll