#22 - The true scientific significance of a group of unusual

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

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

The stimulus argues that the true scientific significance of some fossils is likely to be reflected in a more recent classification rather than Walcott's own classification. This assertion is supported by pointing to who Walcott was—a prominent member of the scientific establishment. Thus, the argument infers that Walcott, on the basis of who he was, probably set out to confirm what established science had already taken to be true—missing the true scientific significance of these fossils.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The argument's attack on Walcott's classification of the fossils is based entirely upon who Walcott was. Thus, draws its conclusion about a position from the characteristics of the source of that position.

Answer choice (B) The argument does not cite two pieces of evidence. The one piece of evidence the argument cites is about who Walcott was. The rest of the argument are inferences drawn from who Walcott was.

Answer choice (C) There is no contradiction in the argument between two premises. The two premises that support the main conclusion in this argument—one piece of evidence about Walcott, and one inference drawn from that evidence—are perfectly consistent. The flaw is that the inference is based upon who Walcott was—not that it contradicts the evidence from which it is drawn. Furthermore, there is no indication that the terms used are vague.

Answer choice (D) The argument does no such thing. There is no opposite claim mentioned or attacked.

Answer choice (E) There is no indication that the social and political categories the argument uses—member of the scientific establishment—applies only to the present and not the past.

[reop6780]

I somehow got the correct answer of A, but neither understand the stimuli nor answer A.

So, is the claim made in the first sentence of the stimuli?

How is it relevant between being reflected in a recent classification and Walcott being a prominent member of the scientific establishment?

Also, I do not understand what "merit" of a position was described in the stimuli, and the rest.

Is the stimuli made to confuse people or am I missing some important connection between sentences?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Hyun,

Let's talk about two things here. First, in this question, what you have is a classic Source argument. Why do they say Walcott's own classification is unlikely reflect the true significance of these fossils? Because he was a member of the establishment and would thus just confirm what the establishment thought. Is it confusing to fight through the language in the stimulus? Yes, but this is a pretty typical LSAT stimulus, and I wouldn't say this question is at the hard end of the scale.

The answer actually references the word "source," which helps tie it to that flaw. "Merit" in this case simply means value or worth.

Second, looking at the series of questions you've posted here, it looks like just about every question in this section of question gave you some trouble. In most instances, it's the language posing problems for you. what I might recommend here is that, instead of moving through new material, you take a pause and review many of the prior questions you missed. I think it may help to re-review questions you've already completed, as you may gain a new perspective on them when you re-examine them. That will then help you move forward again with more confidence and success.

Thanks!

[reop6780]

I always have a lot of questions at the beginning new section in question type training to make sure I get I correct answer based upon the right logic relevant to the question type. That's why I bombarded you with a lot of questions (haha...)
Thank you for your advice, and I would not move on to the next question unless I fully understand the previous one.

You have no idea how helpful this forum is to me in that I study all by myself.
Well, I bought all power score series since I've heard power score offer the best books for students studying by themselves. Still, I have all these questions that must be answered for me to improve the score, and this forum helped me tremendously.

Thank you for everything including personal advice !

[lizzieb]

This question is the one about the paleontologist Charles Walcott. I thought this was a pretty tricky question and I guessed C. A is the correct answer but I just don't understand why. It seems to me that their is contradictory info in the passage, and that would make the correct answer C, right? ... Would you mind explaining why the answer is A instead?
Thank you!

[Andrew Ash]

Hi Lizzie,

The key to nailing these Flaw questions is coming up with a strong prephrase, and the best way to do that is to spot the flaw in the argument before you move on to the answer choices. In this case, the author has decided that Walcott must be unreliable because of who he was, rather than what he said. Any time an author does this, it's a mistake - specifically, it's a source argument, which we discuss on page 7-14. Once you've recognized it as a source argument, answer choice (A) is easy to spot.

The problem with answer choice (C) is that contradictions just don't appear very often on the LSAT. For two premises to be contradictory, it has to be impossible for both of them to be true at the same time - for instance, "Andrew's car is red" and "Andrew's car is blue." Here, our two premises are "Walcott was an established scientist" and "established scientists usually just confirm what established science has already taken to be true." These two premises don't actually disagree with each other, so they are not contradictory. We discuss internal contradictions in more detail on page 7-30. Just remember that they don't show up very often, so when you're stuck, think twice before picking it as an answer choice.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Andrew

[Johnclem]

Could someone please check my understanding of this problem ? A , c and D all looked good to me .


1 - he was a prominent member of the scientific establishment .
2- he didn't do anything other than confirm what established science had already taken to be true.

C : the true significance of a group of fossils discovered by CW are more likely to be better reflected in recent classification than CW's own classification .

My analysis I think I see two flaws here )-
1) lack of evidence for the conclusion: We have 0 information as to why there is a better classification now. All we know what CW did and how he was part of this classification.

2 ) contradiction : in the stimulus as the author states "he was part of the establishment " yet "he did nothing, that established science didn't tell us" . ( but he was part of the established science team , so how could he tell nothing )?


Thanks

[David Boyle]

Could someone please check my understanding of this problem ? A , c and D all looked good to me .


1 - he was a prominent member of the scientific establishment .
2- he didn't do anything other than confirm what established science had already taken to be true.

C : the true significance of a group of fossils discovered by CW are more likely to be better reflected in recent classification than CW's own classification .

My analysis I think I see two flaws here )-
1) lack of evidence for the conclusion: We have 0 information as to why there is a better classification now. All we know what CW did and how he was part of this classification.

2 ) contradiction : in the stimulus as the author states "he was part of the establishment " yet "he did nothing, that established science didn't tell us" . ( but he was part of the established science team , so how could he tell nothing )?


Thanks

Hello John,

As for lack of evidence, technically maybe, although the argument in the stimulus may not be bad, since if Walcott is supposedly a bad egg, then it might stand to reason that having a recent classification would tend to be better.
There is no contradiction, since it doesn't say "he did nothing". It says, "His classifications are thus unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true."

Hope this helps,
David

[UnimelbLsat]

Hey, so I understand what you mean by making a judgement on who Walcott was rather than what he said is flawed reasoning. And I got the the question correct, since "draws conclusions about the merit of a position" reflects that.

However, I am still confused by the rest of that sentence. What does " the content of that position from evidence about the position's source" means?

After studying powerscore materials for a period of time, I realized that most of the time I chose the wrong answer simply because I couldn't comprehend the wording of the given choices/stimulus, and not because I am unfamiliar with the related rules in regards to certain question types.

English is my second language so this is truly frustrating.

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for asking, Unimelb. I'll see if I can break that sentence down for you.

"The content of that position" - that's what the position contained. In others words, what he said.

"Evidence about the position's source" - that means looking at characteristics of the person making the argument, rather than characteristics of the argument itself.

In other words, this sentence means "he made a judgment about an argument based on a judgment about the person that made the argument."

Your struggle as a non-native speaker is pretty common, and the strange and convoluted use of language found throughout the test can be especially troubling for someone in your position. It's hard enough for those of us that grew up speaking and reading English! One thing that may help you sometimes is to recall the instructions in the test, which tell you to pick the best answer. If you can confidently eliminate four answer choices, and the fifth answer choice is confusing you, don't spend time analyzing it to try and understand it better. If the other four are clearly wrong, then the one that isn't clearly wrong is the best answer! Pick it and move on - you can always analyze it later, after you have finished the test, to improve your overall understanding. I tell my students all the time to stop analyzing answers before they have sorted them all into losers and contenders. Analysis is only needed when you have more than one contender.

That won't always get you out of trouble, but it will help sometimes. Don't get caught up in the confusing language - that's a trap that wastes time and effort and increases frustration.

Good luck!