Q10 - Vincent: No scientific discipline can study something

[ying_yingjj]

I have a weakness on this type of questions, especially on two people's conversation, then ask us what they agree or disagree on.

Got this question wrong, but I don't get it why C is the correct answer.

1. When being asked what they disagree on, does it mean, one has to say "yes" and the other has to say "no" to the answer?

2. When being asked what they agree on, then both party has to say "yes" to the answer? What if they both say "no", that's also a type of agreeing, right?

Can anyone explain why A is incorrect and C is correct?

[ohthatpatrick]

You're correct about #1 and #2, although for an "Agree" question it would be very weird for them to agree that something is wrong.

It depends how the question stem is exactly worded. If it said "they agree with which of the following", then they have to actually be saying YES to the answer choice.

If is says "they agree over which of the following", then I guess it's possible to say that they agree a certain answer choice is wrong (but I've never seen LSAT do that and I don't think they will).

My strategy for these is to
1. Read both people
2. Go back and figure out how many claims the first person had (for instance, Vincent has 3 claims).
3. Decide which of those claims the 2nd person takes issue with.
4. Bracket off the claim from person 1 and person 2 that seem to clash.

For this problem, Vincent claimed:
1. No scientific discipline can study something that cannot be measured.

Did Yolanda argue that "some scientific disciplines CAN study something that can't be measured"?

Yes, kinda. She talks about optometry, as though it's a scientific discipline, and mentions that optometry relies on subjective reports (not something that can be measured).

2. Happiness is an entirely subjective experience

Did Yolanda argue that "Happiness is NOT an entirely subjective experience"?

No, Yolanda wasn't really talking about happiness itself.

3. Happiness cannot be measured

Did Yolanda argue that "Happiness CAN be measured"?

No, Yolanda seems to admit that happiness/optometry are similar in that they rely on 2nd-hand reports, not measurements.

So Yolanda seems to really take issue with Vincent's first idea. This helps me pre-phrase an answer: the debate is over whether "a scientific discipline can study something that cannot be measured".

Scanning for those types of keywords, it looks like (C) is the closest. But I don't love the wording.

Eliminating the other answers:
(A) V clearly agrees but Y didn't address that topic, and seems to agree.

(B) Y clearly agrees but V didn't discuss optometry.

(D) "as much a" is a sketchy comparison to me. Y is definitely implying that happiness research could be a scientific discipline, by arguing that its use of subjective reports does not disqualify it. Plus, V never discusses optometry.

(E) They're not debating whether unmeasurable experiences are / aren't subjective.


Notice the ample us of negating I'm doing throughout this problem. As I re-read Vincent's claims, I immediately negated each to see if it seemed fair to say that Yolanda took the opposite position.

As I'm considering answer choices, I'm negating them to see whether it feels right to assign each side of the claim to one person or the other.

With correct answer (C), we have
"a scientific discipline CAN rely on subjective reports"
vs.
"a scientific discipline CANNOT rely on subjective reports"

It seems fair to assign the former point of view to Yolanda and the latter to Vincent.

Hope this helps.

[LukeM22]

Did Yolanda argue that "some scientific disciplines CAN study something that can't be measured"?

Yes, kinda. She talks about optometry, as though it's a scientific discipline, and mentions that optometry relies on subjective reports (not something that can be measured).

I feel this requires the assumption that Yolanda believes that something based on subjective reports cannot be measured... which is not a claim she made (Vincent did). Given that Yolanda did not state an opinion on the relationship between subjectivity and "measurability", is it not possible for her to hold her stated views without having an opinion on measurability?

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure, it's possible. As I said in the quoted text, "Yeah kinda". It's not bulletproof.

But a couple things:
1. Are you saying that Yolanda is disagreeing more with Vincent's 2nd claim or 3rd claim?

Even if we don't have fully explicit support for the idea that Yolanda would oppose Vincent's 1st claim, it seems like we have the most support for that one.

2. These conversations do occur chronologically, so I think we're allowed some more leeway with the 2nd person. SHE might not have defined "subjective reports can't be measured", but Vincent just said that and she didn't push back at all.

She's aware of his definition when she responds to him, and since HE was linking that definition to a refutation of happiness research as a scientific discipline, HER bringing up whether a scientific discipline such as optometry relies on subjective reports is surely relevant to his mindset that "subjective ≠ measurable".

[YiZ98]

I guess C is really the best to choose, but the term RELY is sort of annoying.

V only said that Scientific Discipline cannot study something that can't be measured, but not claiming that it cannot rely on things that can't be measured. Perhaps V thinks that scientific discipline relies partly on language and communications between scientists, which can't be measured.

In other words, the things that a discipline relies on need not to have the same qualities with that of the subject.

[RichardK17]

Sure, it's possible. As I said in the quoted text, "Yeah kinda". It's not bulletproof.

But a couple things:
1. Are you saying that Yolanda is disagreeing more with Vincent's 2nd claim or 3rd claim?

Even if we don't have fully explicit support for the idea that Yolanda would oppose Vincent's 1st claim, it seems like we have the most support for that one.

2. These conversations do occur chronologically, so I think we're allowed some more leeway with the 2nd person. SHE might not have defined "subjective reports can't be measured", but Vincent just said that and she didn't push back at all.

She's aware of his definition when she responds to him, and since HE was linking that definition to a refutation of happiness research as a scientific discipline, HER bringing up whether a scientific discipline such as optometry relies on subjective reports is surely relevant to his mindset that "subjective ≠ measurable".

It seemed to me like it was the 3rd claim that Yolanda is denying: "Happiness cannot be measured."

The reason is that subjective reports in optometry is clearly measurable: in fact it seems like that is how it partially works. When you go to the eye doctor you tell the optometrist whether the image you see through the machine is more or less blurry, which gradually allows the optometrist to figure out which lens to prescribe. Similarly, even though happiness is a subjective mental state, we can measure happiness levels (though somewhat imprecisely) through self reports—this is what they do in the psychological field of positive psychology. So I think Yolanda isn't actually arguing against (1), but (3). I think this interpretation makes the best sense of why she draws on the discipline of optometry.

I do admit though that the answer choice (C) is confusing and not very precise. But, fortunately you can eliminate the other answers.