#22 - Science writer: Scientists’ astounding success rate

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (C)

The science writer sets out to explain why scientists have such a high rate of solving problems. The author is concerned because, due to the high success rate, the public incorrectly believe that scientists can solve any problem. However, scientists often self-select the problems they want to solve, and even when the problems are selected by others, the formulation of the problem is often done by scientists in such a way to make it solvable. The writer continues stating that scientists are almost never asked to solve problems that are not subject to the above constraints.

As a Must Be True question, we must determine what additional information we can infer from the facts above. In some cases, we can prephrase an answer choice by using conditional reasoning. However, in this case, we do not have a conditional stimulus. As we go through the answer choices, we want to be focused on only the facts given in the stimulus, and not attempt to insert additional facts or assumptions.

Answer choice (A): This is a Mistaken Reversal of an idea found in the stimulus. Even though conditionality is not central to the argument, it can still help us to understand this answer choice. The stimulus suggests that if scientists are called on to solve a problem, then it is likely formulated in such a way as to be solvable. This answer choice flips the terms, and suggests that if a problem is solvable, then scientists will be called upon to solve it. Remember, in order to be valid conditional reasoning, the contrapositive must both reverse and negate the terms in the conditional statement.

Answer choice (B): The science writer provided two different ways that scientists get problems to solve. 1) They are selected by businessmen/politicians but are formulated in such a way to be solvable, or 2) They are selected by the scientists themselves. Though it seems like scientists would only select problems that are formulated in such a way to be solvable, this does not have to be true. We cannot assume anything not stated by the argument.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The stimulus states that the public incorrectly believes that scientists can solve any problem. The fact that this belief is false must mean that there are certain problems that scientists cannot solve. Since now they select problems in such a way that leads them to select solvable problems, if the selection process were to include a broader array of questions, it would be more likely to include questions that were not formulated to be solvable. Therefore, the success rate would likely be lower.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice, like answer choice (B), does not have to be true. We do not have information about how those in business or politics determine what questions they ask of scientists. Without additional information, we cannot determine that this answer choice has to be true.

Answer choice (E): We do not know if the problems are usually selected by the scientists, or usually by the business leaders/politicians, but formulated by the scientists, or if it is some equal combination of the two methods. We only know that the scientists currently have significant input in the questions they work on as well as the way in which the problems are posed.

[15veries]

Hi,

But in the middle it says "when the problem...nevertheless guided by scientists" so I thought every problem will be solved in some way.
Why still B is wrong?

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there 15, thanks for the question. Let me ask you about this one. What makes you think that answer B is the one that is most strongly supported? That is what the stem asks you to find, the answer that is most strongly supported. It isn't about right and wrong. It almost never is about right and wrong on this test.

Start your analysis with the info in the stimulus. What support do we have that ANY problem that a scientist could solve could be formulated in such a way? We know that politicians try to select problems that are formulated that way, and we know that scientists are almost never asked to solve problems that are not subject to such formulation, but can we get from that info to "all"? Could there be just one problem out there that a scientist could solve that is not subject to such formulation?

Another part of your analysis has to be about comparing contenders to one another. After all, we don't just want an answer that has some support, we want the one with the MOST support. Compared to C, what makes you think that B is better? That's the real heart of LR - it's about selecting the best answer, and to do that you have to compare answers to each other.

Take another look with those ideas in mind and let's see what happens. Keep at it!

[avengingangel]

Hello! I was really shocked to find out that C, and not D, is the credited correct answer here, and, unfortunately, the explanation here does not do anything for me to think otherwise. My reasoning below. Any thoughts/comments are appreciated!

Why C is NOT most strongly supported:
We don't know how many non-scientifically formulated research problems (aka ones scientists might not be successful in solving) exist, so there is no way to tell if their success rate would be lower if the grounds for selecting such problems were less narrow. It is clearly possible, but there is no indication from the stimulus that that is probably true. To specifically address the Admin's explanation: the existence of "certain problems" that scientists cannot solve certainly does not lead to the increased likelihood that their success rate would be less than it is now. The broadening of selection grounds could quite possibly mean even more problems are considered that also are scientifically-formulated, in the end boosting their success rate. I'm not saying that probably would happen, just saying you cannot infer otherwise from the stimulus. This reasoning is compatible with the argument's conclusion that the public falsely believes science can solve any problem; there would need to be a more representative sample of the types of questions to be able to come to a valid conclusion about science's ability.

Why D IS most strongly supported:
This absolutely does have to be true. It is a restatement of the third sentence, and adding "want solved" (so, the only way this could be wrong is if the politicians and business leaders called upon scientists to solve problems that they did NOT want solved, which is unreasonable to believe). The stimulus states scientists either A) select the problems to solve themselves or B) are called upon by politicians or business leaders to solve problems (of which are "guided by scientists in such a way as to make scientific solutions feasible"), and that scientists are "almost never asked to solve problems that not subject to such formulation." In other words, most of the problems they're called upon to solve have "formulations the scientists have helped to guide," which is what D so plainly states.

Please! See -- Doesn't that make so much sense ?? Any additional explanation or help would be MUCH appreciated! Right now I see no way as to how D is not most strongly supported, and it's driving me crazy !!! Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with D, Angel, is that we have no numerical data to support the claim of "most". Let's say that there are 100 problems that scientists are called upon to solve. We know that of those 100 problems, some may be selected by politicians or business leaders, and those selections are guided by scientists. What evidence do you have that at least 51 of those 100 problems (most = more than half) are problems that politicians and business leaders want solved? Couldn't it be that most of the problems are selected by scientists themselves, or by people who are not politicians and business leaders? Maybe only a small percentage are selected by those folks?

When presented with numerical claims, or claims about percentages, be very careful. Check to see if you have sufficient numerical data to support those claims. If I tell you that the percentage of people in my household who are female is substantially higher than the percentage of people I am current tutoring who are female. Does that prove there are more females in my household than are on my tutoring rolls? Not at all - we have no info about the numbers, just the percentages.

Look over the Admin's explanation again. Right now, the scientists are narrowly selecting solvable problems, giving a false impression that they can solve almost any problem. That language tells us in no uncertain terms that they cannotsolve almost any problem, and there must be, among the unselected problems, a higher percentage of problems they cannot solve than there is among those that they selected. Broadening the scope would have to alter the percentages of solvable vs not solvable.

Take another look and think about those numbers and percentages, and see if that doesn't change your mind about this one.

[avengingangel]

Thanks, Adam. In reviewing this question, I realize I was confused with the meanings of "called upon" and "select." I was thinking the stimulus was saying that the TOTAL problems that scientists have been faced with solving thus far only have come through 2 avenues: them selecting the problems themselves OR politicians/business leaders calling upon them to solve. So therefore, D would have been correct, in that most (more than half) problems they were called upon were by politicians/business leaders & were also scientifically-formulated. But in actuality, the argument is leaving open the possibility that the problems they're being called upon to solve by politicians/business leaders are the same ones selected by scientists, leaving a gap in knowledge about the other sources of people/groups that may also call upon scientists to solve a problem. In other words, we don't know the total makeup of who calls upon scientists. We just know that when it is politicians and business leaders, the problems are typically scientifically-formulated in a way that leaves to successful solutions by scientists. So now I totally get why D is not supported.

However, I'm still not totally sold on C as being supported by the argument -- but either way, equipped with a more accurate understanding of the argument, I would be forced to select C as the "most strongly supported" answer out of the 5 answer choices, even if it's not the perfect answer choice.

[mankariousc]

Hello!

Could you show me how you would diagram this question? Does the diagram interact at all with the answer choices?

Thanks!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi mankariousc,

This question has cause and effect reasoning, which you could try to diagram, but it doesn't lend itself well to it--and the diagramming wouldn't come into play with the answer choices. This question does not have conditional reasoning. Can you show us what you diagrammed so we can help you figure out where you got off track here?

[mankariousc]

I actually didn't diagram. I thought I was supposed to. How would I approach this question if I'm not supposed to diagram?

[Kristina Moen]

Hi mankariousc,

When I read any stimulus, I try to find a conclusion. Here, I'd label the conclusion as this part: "Scientists’ astounding success rate with research problems they have been called upon to solve causes the public to believe falsely that science can solve any problem." Why? Because the questions are selected either by the scientists themselves or by politicians/business leaders with the guidance of scientists! This is the reason for their astounding success rate.

I approach every stimulus first by asking if there's a premise and conclusion. Sometimes there are only facts (no argument). This helps me to understand what's happening in the argument.Since this a Must Be True without conditional reasoning, it may be difficult to prephrase. There are many options the testmakers could choose! So I go to the answer choices and read them. Sort them into contenders (these I keep) and losers (these I cross out). I ask myself if the answer choice meets the Fact Test and is supported by the argument. Let me know if there's an answer choice you specifically want me to discuss. The first post in this thread has a more complete discussion of the answer choices.