Q22 - Copernicus's astronomical system is superior

[cyruswhittaker]

Can you elaborate on why D is correct for question 22?

I initially chose C, but realize that is incorrect because it states "intuitively true," which was not the factor indicated in the argument.

My support for D is that 1) it correctly identifies the evidence was equally consistent 2) correctly addresses complexity, which was directly specified in the argument with "simpler theory 3) it correctly addresses two competing theories (in contrast for example choice A).

Thanks for your input, and please let me know if I missed anything.

[giladedelman]

Wonderful explanation! Allow me to gild the gold and paint the lily:

We're told that at the time it was proposed, there was equal evidence for both Copernicus's and Ptolemy's astronomical theories. Copernicus's was simpler, though, therefore it was superior.

Then we're asked to identify a principle to which the argument conforms; in other words, we're looking for an assumption.

So what's the assumption? Basically, that if two theories are equally supported by the evidence, the simpler one is better.

(D) is correct for the reasons you pointed out. Other things being equal -- i.e., the evidence supports them both equally -- the more complex theory -- i.e., Ptolemy's -- is the inferior theory. That is the assumption we identified, and matches up with the argument perfectly. (LSAC tries to trick us by saying that the more complex one is inferior; but we know that this is equivalent to saying that the simpler one is superior.)

(A) is tempting, but it goes too far. Simplicity should be the sole deciding factor? No, we don't need to assume that. The question is, how should you decide between theories when the evidence supports them both equally?

(B) is out of scope. The argument doesn't involve one theory that's likely to be true and one that's likely to be false.

(C) is incorrect for the very subtle reason you pointed out! "Intuitively true" is not the same thing as "simple." Another problem is that the argument is about which theory is superior, not about which one is "more practical to adopt." Who knows, maybe it turns out to be more practical to adopt an inferior theory. It certainly would have been for Galileo, who was placed under lifelong house arrest by the Inquisition for his superior yet unpopular ideas.

(E) is out of scope. We're talking about which theory is superior, not which is more scientifically important.

I hope that answered all your questions!

[lisahollchang]

I chose B because of the statement Ptolemy's theory "struck Copernicus as unlikely." But you're right in saying that there is better and more supported evidence for D.

[WaltGrace1983]

I chose B because of the statement Ptolemy's theory "struck Copernicus as unlikely." But you're right in saying that there is better and more supported evidence for D.

Remember that Copernicus saying something is unlikely to be true does not mean that it IS actually unlikely to be true.

[asafezrati]

Yeah, I don't get D.

The stimulus says that Copernicus happened to be correct. his theory was correct, not necessarily because it was simpler than Ptolemy's. His theory was just simpler, and its simplicity didn't necessarily play a role in telling anyone whether it was correct or not.

[maryadkins]

Since the question is merely which answer "conforms MOST closely," you just have to see how (D) is better than the other choices, which it is in this question because it's the only one there's support for, at all. Is there another answer choice you would argue in favor of over (D)?

[Jesslxh]

How is complex is inferior the same as simple is superior? I mean isn't the first one the mistaken negation version of the second ?

Sim ----> Superior

Com ---> Inferior (which is the same as ~Sim -----> ~ Sup)

This is the reason I eliminated D as the first wrong answer choice.

Help!

[TillyS471]

To get to the bottom of this .
This argument conclusion is EVEN AT THE TIME COPERNICUS's THEORY WAS PROPOSED, Copernicus's theory was superior to Ptolemy's.

when copernicus proposed his theory, I hope we all know what happens in history but really the fact is... when you first propose a theory. YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER ITS CORRECT, or LIKELY TO BE TRUE... (no satellite to confirm anything)

especially in this case, it was commonly unaccepted.... (in history, becuz of religious reasons)... so AT THAT TIME, we don't know whether its true or not, so being correct or true or more likely to be true CAN NOT BE the reason why it was SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME. it definitely can explain why its superior NOW cuz we all know that it is in fact the truth......

Hence, the only thing that makes it superior , as the argument follows is its simplicity.

[StratosM31]

Sorry, I might be wrong, but I’m really confused… I don’t agree with the reasoning in the comments regarding why A) is eliminated, and I still believe A is a better AC than D.

P: C has the simpler theory.
P: C thought P’s theory was unlikely to be true.
P: observational evidence was equally consistent.
C: C’s theory is superior to P’s theory, and it was also superior in the past.

If this question is treated as a pseudo-sufficient assumption question, we are asked to test each AC as a premise, and decide which one, if used as a premise, brings the argument most closely to being perfectly valid. Let’s compare A) and D) then:

A) If true, then this definitely leads me to the conclusion, and I can ignore the other two premises.

P: C has the simpler theory.
P: simplicity should be the sole deciding factor for choosing among competing scientific theories.
C: C’s theory is superior to P’s theory, and it was also superior in the past.

Whatever other premises I have now, they are irrelevant, as the two premises above are perfectly sufficient to lead me to the conclusion. If simplicity is the only criterion regarding superiority, and C is simpler than B, then C is superior to B, both now and in the past. Period. It doesn’t matter whether observational evidence was equally consistent or not, since, according to A, we assume that simplicity is the only criterion for superiority. An analogous example:

P: John is more talented in mathematics than Mike.
P: The school must choose one between John and Mike to be the representative for the next math tournament.
P: The sole criterion for the school to choose a representative should be talent in mathematics.
P: Compared to Mike, John is quite rude, fat and ugly.
P: Mike is more talented than John in all other subjects, except for mathematics.
C: The school chooses John over Mike.

The first three premises and the conclusion make this a perfectly valid argument, and we can ignore the last two premises, right?

D) I interpreted “other things being equal” as “all other things being equal”. We do not know whether ALL other things were equal. We ONLY know that the evidence of the two theories was equally consistent. Nowhere in the stimulus are we told that there are no other criteria besides simplicity and consistency of evidence.

The answer choice says, based on my interpretation, the following conditional statement: IF all other things are equal, THEN the more complex theory is the inferior one. But we don’t know whether the condition that all other things are equal is true…

Did I maybe misinterpret the question stem? Could you guys let me know what you think?