Q2 - Lecturer: Given our current state

[geverett]

Wow. What a way to start out the first section of PT #35. Here we are given a bunch of dense language regarding systems of closed entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's easy to lose sight of the argument in all this jargon. However, that is just what the test writers want us to do. They want us to get flustered with the fancy language they employ so that we get questions wrong early in the section which can lead to a snowball of poor performance on the test. That being said let's hurdle the dense language they employ in order to find the underlying argumentation which is actually quite basic.

Here's a play by play of the stimulus:

1st sentence: Based on current knowledge we have not yet falsified a certain generalization.

Note: They define the "generalization" as "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease for any spontaneous process" They are trying to mess with you by spelling out the generalization. The details of the generalization are not important. What is important is the fact that they "have not yet falsified" the generalization.

2nd sentence: This generalization is true universally.

Here is our conclusion. So the author of the stimulus has gone from a premise that something has not yet been proven false to a conclusion that it is therefore universally true. Suspicious huh?

3rd sentence: We admit to the fact that the generalization has not been conclusively verified.

The author then goes on to define what conclusively verified means in the context of the argument. Stay on task with finding the meat of the argument though and not getting lost in the details.

4th sentence: However, this generalization has been accepted as a scientific law.

The author then goes on to cite the name of the law: Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Alright so here are some things to keep in mind. Don't get lost in the details of this question. We don't care what entropy or a closed system or even the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. None of this is important in the LSAT. What we do care about is the underlying logic the author employs in making his argument which can be deduced to the following: "So far a generalization has not been proven false yet it has not been proven to be conclusively true. However it is correctly regarded as a scientific law." The author shows you his opinion in the last sentence when he sates that the generalization is correctly regarded as a scientific law. In essence the author believes that the fact that something has not been "conclusively verified" does not preclude it from being regarded as a scientific law.

Question: Which one of the following principles would strengthen the author's reasoning.

So I am looking for an answer choice that bolsters the argument cited above which is "the fact that something has not been conclusively verified does not preclude it from being regarded as a scientific law". I go to the questions with this in mind.

(A) This can be inferred based on the author's argument. However, it's really just a synthesis and restatement of a couple points in the argument and serves more as a premise booster then to shore up the authors reasoning which centers around the notion that "the fact that something has not been falsified, even if it has not been tested in every possible situation, does not preclude it from being regarded as a scientific law."
(B) This would weaken the author's argument. Remember the author states that the fact it has not been tested and conclusively verified in every possible situation does not preclude it from being a scientific law. This answer choice says that it would preclude it from being a scientific law. Get rid of it.
(C) This answer choice does nothing to support our argument, and is actually a reversal of the premise/conclusion relationship cited in the first and second sentences of the stimulus. The author uses the fact that something has not been falsified to support the conclusion that it is true universally. This answer choice is trying to state the reverse by saying that if something is true universally then it will be confirmed to the extent that current science allows. Unsupported. Wrong.
(D) This is what we want. It says that the fact something has been confirmed to the current extent that it can be is sufficient to consider it a scientific law. If this statement is true then the argument in the stimulus has to be true. If you need more clarification on this point then please feel free to ask.
(E) This statement could be true or could not be true but it certainly does nothing to support our authors argument. It bears repeating: This argument centers around the notion that "the fact something has not being falsified to the extent that current science allows, even if it has not been conclusively verified, does not preclude it from being considered a scientific law." Whether something considered a scientific law will one day be conclusively verified or not is irrelevant to the argument. Get rid of it.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation geverett!

And the focus on ignoring the jargon is great advice. Those technical words are almost never important to understanding the structure of the argument and using that structure to correctly accomplish the task set forth in the question stem.

[johnsdouglass]

I disagree with geverett's assertion that the conclusion is the second sentence. I think the conclusion is actually that the generalization is correctly regarded as a scientific law. The leap from not being able to disprove the generalization to concluding that it is true universally is more of a subsidiary conclusion.

The correct answer (D) also requires us to assume that the tests that we have performed have confirmed the law of entropy to the extent that current science allows. This is implied when the lecturer uses the phrase "given our current state of knowledge and technology."

[foralexpark]

I disagree with geverett's assertion that the conclusion is the second sentence. I think the conclusion is actually that the generalization is correctly regarded as a scientific law. The leap from not being able to disprove the generalization to concluding that it is true universally is more of a subsidiary conclusion.

The correct answer (D) also requires us to assume that the tests that we have performed have confirmed the law of entropy to the extent that current science allows. This is implied when the lecturer uses the phrase "given our current state of knowledge and technology."

hi johnsdouglass,

the conclusion is indeed 2nd sentence.
the rest of the argument after it (starting "Yet, it must be...") is just a sort of limitation/qualification supporting that conclusion.
This serves to strengthen the conclusion that whatever has NOT been falsified, can be true universially

[Mab6q]

WOW! I have no idea how people are justifying D for this one. I'm going to share my thoughts and would love some feedback as I am seriously having a hard time justifying D. I don't think any of the answer choices are better but I think D is just bad answer.

So here is how I understood the argument:

This generalization has not been falsified (premise)

So we must conclude that it to be true universally (conclusion)

We admit that we have not been conclusively verified (counterpoint)

Regardless it is a scientific law (claim, intermediate conclusion)

It is referred to as such (I'm not sure if you could note this as a premise or not)

Now, it was hard identifying the conclusion, but it appears to be the claim that the generalization is true universally.

And it seems that the support from that comes from it not being falsified, but mostly the support comes from the last claim, that it is regarded as scientific law. However the author never really established why it was scientific law besides telling us that it was referred to as such.

That's how I saw the argument. From the above, I thought: well, we need to establish our conclusion, so we have to establish true universally.

A. this is useless, for it doesn't get as to true universally and don't know that everything that has not been falsified is true universally.

B. This is straight up weakener.

C. true universally --> conclusively proved. The problem here is that we don't care about conclusively proved.

D. generalization proved to extent scientific allows --> scientific law.

Now this gets us to scientific law, which I believe isn't out conclusion. Now I admit that the principle could justify the gap between premise with and intermediate conclusion and still strengthen, but I don't think we established the sufficient condition.

I have a hard time equating "confirmed to extent science allows" with "has not been falsified by any our our tests"

If anything, I believe the argument tells us that it has not been tested in every corner, which I guess you could say is the reason the answer choice says "confirmed to extent science allows".

E. regarded as scientific law --> conclusively verified

This is also not very helpful, because we don't need it to be conclusively verified.

So I'm having a hard time with D! Any thoughts??

[maryadkins]

So the tricky thing about this question is ID'ing the conclusion. Once you've done that, (D) makes sense. But if you mis-identify the conclusion, you're right, (D) fails.

The conclusion isn't that the generalization is true universally. Read it carefully—the lecturer says that that, but then KEEPS GOING to say, "Yet..." and finally, "Nevertheless..." at which point, we are given the ACTUAL, final conclusion: "this generalization is correctly regarded as a scientific law."

If that's our conclusion, NOT that it's true universally, which is a red-herring, (D) bridges the gap between all of the evidence and it (the actual conclusion).

What a Q2!

[kjsmit02]

While I found the conclusion correctly, I just can't see how the premises can fully encapsulate answer D. Despite the first sentence "Given...", how do we know that this principal has truly been "confirmed to the extent current science allows"? How do we prove that all of our current knowledge has been used in its fullest to prove this theory? It doesnt explain that, and that's why I quickly got rid of this answer. Can someone help me out in my erroneous reasoning here? I feel like lsat switches out btw validating the literal and "almost" literal.

[renata.gomez]

Can someone please explain how we can assume that it has been confirmed to the furthest extent that current science allows? That seems pretty strong to me.

Thank you!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Can someone please explain how we can assume that it has been confirmed to the furthest extent that current science allows? That seems pretty strong to me.

Thank you!

Note that the first line of the argument states, "Given our current state of knowledge and technology..." That lines up fairly well with "to the extent current science allows." While it's not perfect, we don't need it to be perfect. We're only looking for a principle that "most justifies" the argument. So, as long as (D) represents a better choice than the others, it's good enough to be correct.

Hope that helps!

Matt