#24 - The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in that the

[cinnamonpeeler]

Why is (E) incorrect? Does this answer choice not show that the effect can happen without the cause, which is one of the ways to weaken a causal argument?

I am also not clear on whether to think of this as a conditional argument, as the initial explanation suggested, or a causal one. It seems to have a clear causal conclusion (i.e., that the causal claim is wrong.)

Edit: my more general question about causation is whether there can be multiple causes for one effect. The LRB says that, on the LSAT, when the author makes a claim that X caused Y, X must be the only cause of Y and that every time X occurs, Y occurs. Is this always the case? I seem to recall some LSAT questions, like https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=6739 on PT71, that seem to suggest that X is only a factor in Y. In this case, in answer choice (E), the neutron stars occurs without a supernova explanation (so the effect happens without the cause), and so the causal claim that supernovas cause neutron stars (i.e., supernovas always cause neutron stars) is weakened. Why is this wrong?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi cinnamonpeeler!

You bring up a valid observation about the confusion over conditional vs. causal reasoning with this argument! The truth is that the conclusion here gives us both causal elements (supernovas produce neutron stars) and conditional elements (supernovas always produce neutron stars). If you consider just the causal elements, it's easy to see why answer choice (E) might be an attractive answer since, as you said, it appears to give us the effect without the cause. But if you take into account the conditional elements, answer choice (E) becomes much less helpful because the conditional statement for the theory that the author is arguing against is that if you have a supernova, then you must produce a neuron star. But in that relationship, neuron stars are necessary for supernovas, not sufficient. So you could have neuron stars without having supernovas (as described in answer choice (E)) without attacking the conditional argument.

For this question, broaden your scope a bit to focus on the argument structure:

Premise: Current theory says that supernovas cause neutron stars.
Premise: We had a supernova but we have not detected a radiation pulse emitted by a neutron star.
Conclusion: Current theory is wrong.

The author is already trying to give us cause without the effect, so that's the argument we should strengthen. Answer choice (B) does this by strengthening the idea that we really don't have the effect (the neutron stars). Answer choice (E) doesn't strengthen the author's argument because the author is trying to use the lack of a neutron star to prove his point, so information about what the presence of a neutron start might indicate is unhelpful.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[recentreview]

To Whom It May Concern:

I understood the answer to be choice B. However, I think that the answer was not phrased clearly. I would appreciate your feedback in an easy-to-understand layman's terms:

I didn't like this question because you have to know what a supernova is to know the answer to the question.
What I didn't like about the answer is how unclear it is stated or that, as is, it is incomplete.

(Neutron stars are ONLY created by supernovas)
APPARENTLY, neutron stars exist NEAR or IN PROXIMITY TO the supernovas that they were formed by. The test taker must ALREADY know this fact to appropriately select answer B. Otherwise, IF a neutron star could appear in a location far far away from the supernova explosion site, then answer B is false. And it is fair for the test taker to consider this possibility since the galaxy located outside of the earth's atmosphere isn't bound to the same laws that the earth is bound to - in fact, the galactic laws of science are different than that of the earth's (e.g. gravity).

The LSAC explains its answer reasoning as such: Response (B) provides such evidence. If "sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova," then it is less likely that the predicted neutron star is outside the detection range of "the most sensitive instruments ever developed." Thus, (B) is the correct response.

The problem with LSAC's explanation is that it fails to address the DETECTION RANGE that it mentions in its reasoning either in the question or the passage.
IMHO answer B should have stated: Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars "outside the location of the DETECTION RANGE of the 1987 supernova", instead of "much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova".

What is your understanding of my deduction?

[Robert Carroll]

recentreview,

I have no background in astrophysics whatsoever and did not find that to be a disadvantage for this question. I disagree that any such knowledge is required or even particularly helpful for this question. The stimulus itself tells you that neutron stars are some of the remnants of supernovae, according to current theory. What these things are, why they are such remnants...none of that seems to matter for answering this question.

It seems to defy common sense to think that a supernova would result in a neutron star's existing somewhere distant from the supernova. Since common sense lines up with the stimulus, I'd stick with the assumption that neutron stars are created in the same area as the supernova, according to the current theory.

Possible worlds where the laws of physics differ substantially are also probably not relevant either.

Detection range is talked about in answer choice (B). It's within the range that something can be detected by the instruments. It has no apparent special meaning - it relies on the common definitions of the two words that make it up.

I also don't understand the reference to answer choice (B)'s being false if neutron stars could be created far away from the supernovae that give birth to them. This is a Strengthen question, so we trust every answer choice because the question says to do so. An answer might not strengthen the argument and therefore be incorrect, but there is no way an answer could be false for one of these questions. Further, if answer choice (B) is wrong, I don't see any case for any other answer anyway.

Robert Carroll

[recentreview]

Dear Robert,

I can agree with your reasoning, however, I'm not sure what you mean in that there is no false answer and "we trust every answer choice because the question says to do so". I don't see where the question tells us to do so; in fact, the question actually states, "Which one of the following, if true,[/b} most strengthens the argument?" The way the question is phrased with the words "if true" implies that some answers might not be true.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the question; in that case, the question would be more clear if it is rephrased to read: If each of the following choices is considered to be true, which answer choice most strengthens the argument?

Answer B is unclearly written in that it does not state whether the neutron stars mentioned in the answer are associated with or formed by the 1987 supernova referred to in the passage. This un/association determines whether answer B is correct or not. If the neutron stars in answer B are associated with the 1987 supernova then obviously choice B is incorrect, as it negates the argument. However, if the neutron stars mentioned in answer B are a result of other supernovas and unassociated with the 1987 supernova then answer B is correct. Given the way answer B is phrased, it is unclear and therefore fair to infer one way or the other.

Your thoughts?

[Robert Carroll]

recentreview,

The "if true" in the question means that you trust the truth of every single answer choice. Whether an answer might be false is entirely irrelevant to answering these questions - the question is stipulating that EVERY answer choice is considered true. The wrong answer choices, even if utterly true, just won't strengthen the argument. So arguing about whether an answer is actually a true statement is not a good use of time.

Your rephrasing is just equivalent to what the question is asking. If that helps make it more clear for you, you can certainly so translate it.

Answer choice (B) isn't even trying to say that the neutron stars it's talking about are ones created by the 1987 supernova. It's saying that the sensitive instruments have detected other neutron stars even farther away than what should have been found in the 1987 supernova, establishing that the instruments available are capable of detecting a neutron star at least as far away as the one that should have been created in the 1987 supernova. An analogy might help. Someone claims that they can see their house from a certain mountain overlook. Another person objects: "You can't see your house from here." The first person responds: "But I can see the gas station from here, and that's even farther away than my house." The first person is saying they can see another thing even more distant in order to establish that their house is within the range where they could observe it. Similarly, answer choice (B) is saying that other neutron stars can be detected at a longer range, so the target 1987-supernova-generated neutron star should also be detectable, since it's closer to Earth.

I would also want to bring it back to another point - which answer choice do you think strengthens the argument more than answer choice (B)?

Robert Carroll

[recentreview]

Robert,

I'm glad we both agree. That's Exactly what I was saying in my previous post; the question is unclear and so is answer B. Answer B does not clarify whether the (other) neutron stars were formed by the same 1987 supernova; therefore it is fair to assume one way or the other.

To avoid this assumption, answer B needs to make clear that the (other) neutron stars are not formed by the 1987 supernova. Otherwise, the only other way I would know this fact is if I would know about supernovae - something you previously said is Not a requirement of the LSATs.

Furthermore, on reflection, "much farther away than" is comparative, and answer B does not clearly state what is being compared. The distance of the detected neutron star is being compared to the location of the 1987 supernova - that does not make sense. Distance is space between 2 points and location is just 1 point. An assumption is again required. Which distances are being compared?

Thank you

[Adam Tyson]

You're making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be, recentreview.

The argument is that we have used the best instruments available and have not found something that theory says should be there, so therefore the theory must be wrong.

One possible problem with this argument is that the best instruments we have might not be good enough. Maybe the real reason we haven't found the thing is that our instruments can't see that far away? Maybe it's there and we just can't detect it using these instruments?

Answer B helps to fix that problem by demonstrating that the instruments are probably not the problem, since they have been able to detect things even farther away. They appear to be good enough to do the job, so if it was there we should probably be able to detect it.

Answer B does not prove that the author is correct. There could be many other problems with the argument, and many other reasons why we haven't yet found the thing the theory said should be there. Some of the points you raise address those issues. But a Strengthen answer doesn't need to deal with every possible contingency. It just needs to be helpful, something that the author could add to their evidence to make their conclusion at least a little bit more convincing. Answer B fits that description very nicely, and none of the other answers are any use at all. Since you are supposed to pick the best answer of the choices given, you simply must select answer B. Fighting against the answer, poking holes in it and arguing about why it may be imperfect, is no use, because that has nothing to do with the task you are assigned by the question.