#10 - Vincent: No scientific discipline can study something

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (C)

Vincent argues that happiness cannot be measured, because it is a subjective experience. In addition to this brief argument, Vincent states a conditional rule: “no scientific discipline can study something that cannot be measured.” The negative language in both the sufficient and the necessary conditions can make this rule difficult to diagram. However, we can restate this relationship as “if a discipline is scientific, then it must study something that can be measured,” which we may diagram as:


SD = scientific discipline
M = something that can be measured

Sufficient Necessary

SD M


Since Vincent told us that happiness cannot be measured (M), we can apply this conditional rule using the letter H as a subscript for “happiness:”


MH SDH


So, we can infer that Vincent does not believe that happiness can be the subject of a scientific discipline.

Yolanda draws an analogy between happiness research and optometry, which she definitively labels a scientific discipline. Yolanda points out that both optometry and happiness research rely on subjective data, with optometrists relying “on patients’ reports of what they see,” while happiness research “relies on subjects’ reports of how they feel.” Based on this similarity, we can infer that Yolanda disagrees with Vincent that the subjective nature of the data measured by happiness research precludes it from being a scientific discipline.

Given the two speaker structure, we are not surprised to see that this is a Point at Issue question. There are two areas of disagreement between Vincent and Yolanda. On a general level, they disagree over whether a discipline can be scientific if it relies on subjective data. Vincent thinks it cannot, while Yolanda believes that, like optometry, it can.

On a more specific level, they disagree about whether happiness research can be a scientific discipline. We can infer that Vincent believes it is precluded from being a scientific discipline due to the subjective nature of its data. However, Yolanda does not think its reliance on subjective reports precludes it from being a scientific discipline. However, we must be very cautious with the extent of this portion of the prephrase. Yolanda does not give an opinion about whether happiness research is, in fact a scientific discipline. She simply thinks that the subjective nature of the data it measures does not preclude it from being a scientific discipline.

Answer choice (A): Yolanda does not give an opinion about whether happiness is entirely subjective.

Answer choice (B): We do not know whether Vincent thinks optometry is a scientific discipline.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. As described above, we know that Vincent thinks that a scientific discipline must study something that can be measured, and that if an experience is entirely subjective, then it cannot be measured. So, Vincent would disagree with the statement that a scientific discipline can rely on subjective reports. Yolanda, however, thinks that a scientific discipline, such as optometry, can rely on subjective reports.

Answer choice (D): We do not know whether Vincent considers optometry to be a scientific discipline. And, while Yolanda’s opinion on this issue is a bit harder to understand, we do not know whether she would agree that happiness research is as much a scientific discipline as optometry is. While Yolanda does not think that happiness research is precluded from being a scientific discipline based on the subjective nature of the evidence, there may be some other problem with happiness research that Yolanda simply did not discuss.

Answer choice (E): Yolanda did not express an opinion about whether experiences that cannot be measured are entirely subjective.

[jayzbrisk]

I chose answer choice c because it was the best answer, but isn't it slightly flawed in assuming that relying on subjective reports makes the experience immeasurable? If you look closely at what Vincent says you see that all he says is that "since happiness is an entirely subjective experience it cannot be measured" maybe an experience that isn't entirely subjective but rather only partially subjective is measurable and therefore a scientific discipline can rely on subjective reports?

[Adam Tyson]

That may be splitting hairs a bit, jayzbrisk, although I see where you are coming from. You're saying that answer C does not present a simple "yes/no" binary option, and that someone could respond with "in some cases, partially yes". While your position makes a good point, I think it's fair to say that Vincent would say "no, science cannot rely on subjective reports - there has to be at least something objective that can be measured." But would Vincent then be relying on the subjective reports, or only on the portion that is, in his view, measurable? He's definitely saying that science must involve something measurable, and that there is nothing measurable if it is entirely subjective.

Ultimately, though, you already determined the most important aspect of answering this question - answer C, even if you see it as imperfect, is still the best answer, and that is what the instructions tell us to select. Since this test is not about perfect answers, there's no reason to give more thought to whether this answer is perfect or flawed! I think it's perfect, but you see it differently, and while we might have an interesting conversation about that over a beer after you have crushed the test and you're waiting on all those acceptance letters to start rolling in, it's not the sort of thing that will help us improve our LSAT scores.

[Albertlyu]

That may be splitting hairs a bit, jayzbrisk, although I see where you are coming from. You're saying that answer C does not present a simple "yes/no" binary option, and that someone could respond with "in some cases, partially yes". While your position makes a good point, I think it's fair to say that Vincent would say "no, science cannot rely on subjective reports - there has to be at least something objective that can be measured." But would Vincent then be relying on the subjective reports, or only on the portion that is, in his view, measurable? He's definitely saying that science must involve something measurable, and that there is nothing measurable if it is entirely subjective.

Ultimately, though, you already determined the most important aspect of answering this question - answer C, even if you see it as imperfect, is still the best answer, and that is what the instructions tell us to select. Since this test is not about perfect answers, there's no reason to give more thought to whether this answer is perfect or flawed! I think it's perfect, but you see it differently, and while we might have an interesting conversation about that over a beer after you have crushed the test and you're waiting on all those acceptance letters to start rolling in, it's not the sort of thing that will help us improve our LSAT scores.

thanks Adam, I have difficulties treating "what the scientific discipline study" and "Being the scientific discipline" the same thing, may I ask how you made the inference that they are the same thing, because from the Vincent's comments I can only infer:"if entirely subjective scientific discipline cannot study", I do not see how this relates to answer choice C? can you help thank you.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Albert,

I don't think that Adam (or the question) is making the equation you're suggesting. Both arguments discuss only what a scientific discipline can "study," "measure," or "rely on," and those are roughly similar concepts. They're just talking about what the scientific discipline uses to achieve its goals (the things it studies, measures, relies on). Similarly, answer choice C sticks to that narrow scope, by mentioning what the scientific discipline "can rely on." There's no need to go any broader than that, certainly no need to assume that what the discipline is and what it studies are somehow synonymous.

As I was suggesting, though, the relationship between answer choice C and Vincent's argument is in the similarity between what a discipline "studies" and what it "can rely on." That similarity comes from the basic fact that, in studying anything, the discipline is "relying on" that thing (i.e. the discipline needs something to study, so it's fair to say it "relies on" what it studies).

I hope this helps!