Q23 - To predict that a device

[peg_city]

Why is B better then the rest of them?

To me B, C and E look correct.

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument defines what it means to invent something and uses that definition to argue that predicting an invention is impossible - this points directly to answer choice (B).

(A) does not occur in the argument. There is no "counter example."
(C) is pretty close. The hypothesis that is countered in the argument is that one can predict an invention. But what would be the implication of that hypothesis that the argument indicates is false? It's just not there.
(D) is way out of scope since the argument does not claim that the problem is widely thought to be scientific.
(E) is not true. The argument does not try to show that predicting any event implies that is has in fact already taken place. It shows the opposite in that it says that predicting an invention is impossible!

Does that answer your question?

[peg_city]

The argument defines what it means to invent something and uses that definition to argue that predicting an invention is impossible - this points directly to answer choice (B).

(A) does not occur in the argument. There is no "counter example."
(C) is pretty close. The hypothesis that is countered in the argument is that one can predict an invention. But what would be the implication of that hypothesis that the argument indicates is false? It's just not there.
(D) is way out of scope since the argument does not claim that the problem is widely thought to be scientific.
(E) is not true. The argument does not try to show that predicting any event implies that is has in fact already taken place. It shows the opposite in that it says that predicting an invention is impossible!

Does that answer your question?

I still still like C, because I did the section again and came up with the same answer . The implication of the hypothesis is listed in the last two sentences of the stimulus.

Could you explain it in more detail?

Thanks

[zainrizvi]

I don't really understand the argument itself. It says that to predict, one must develop a conception. Then it says notion of predicting an invention is contradictory because inventing means developing a detailed conception.... well what if your prediction wasn't a detailed conception? you could still predict it, and not invent it..

Can anyone explain what the argument is saying?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I don't really understand the argument itself. It says that to predict, one must develop a conception. Then it says notion of predicting an invention is contradictory because inventing means developing a detailed conception.... well what if your prediction wasn't a detailed conception? you could still predict it, and not invent it..

Remember that this is part of the evidence and we would not want to challenge the evidence in describing how the argument proceeds. We're not being asked to describe what the argument forgot to consider, but rather how does the evidence attempt to support the argument's conclusion

There are three premises in this argument and one conclusion.

Evidence:
1. to predict a device will be invented, one must develop a conception of the device.
2. inventing means developing a detailed conception.
3. one cannot predict what has already taken place.

Conclusion
The notion of predicting an invention is self-contradictory.

The argument defines what it means to invent in the second premise, and the conclusion does deny the impossibility of predicting an invention - so answer choice (B) does describe a technique used in the argument.

Answer choice (C) though, does not represent an accurate description of the how the argument proceeds, because the only implication of predicting an invention is that one must develop a conception of the device. But the argument never denies that implication. It does say that one cannot predict something that has already happened, but the argument does not claim that predicting an invention implies that one can predict what has already happened.

Does that answer your question?

[joseph.m.kirby]

We can't necessarily attack the implications of a hypothesis, unless the terms within the hypothesis have a definite meaning; thus, in this argument, the arguer employs a definition which shows the hypothesis is self-contradictory (perhaps the dictionary the arguer used is archaic). In any case, (C) is an effect of the argument. (B) is the technique of reasoning employed.

Perhaps someone else could employ a different definition which would actually support the implications of the hypothesis. The effect would be different while the technique would be of the same style.

[wgutx08]

If the word "falsehood" is changed to "self-contradiction", C would become valid, right?

thanks in advance

[peru_lpz]

Hey,

for anyone still tripped up on answer E, and how it is wrong, here is my input.

notice how the last sentence states that "one cannot predict what has already taken place", logically, it states that if one can predict(P) then it has NOT taken place(TP). Answer E) states that the argument is attempting to show that predicting any event "implies that it has already taken place". That is if one predicts(P) an even then that even has already taken place(TP), which is not something the author is arguing. The stimulus states (( IF P then NOT TP, whereas the answer choices states that IF P then TP)). This two conditional statements are not compatible.

I hope this helps. And please, someone, let me know if I am wrong.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hi peru_lpz,

Great focus on logical structure, though I think on this one the structure is not playing quite the role you described.

I'd suggest the reason why answer choice (E) fails is because of it's scope. Notice that (E) says that the argument discusses the prediction of "any" event. This is not the case. The argument only discusses the prediction of an invention.

Answer choice (E) would include such events as wars, musical performances, and celebrations. However, these kinds of events are not addressed in the argument.

Hope that helps!

[pouyamakki]

You said "The hypothesis that is countered in the argument is that one can predict an invention. But what would be the implication of that hypothesis that the argument indicates is false? It's just not there."

The implications of this claim are what logically follow from claiming that one can predict an invention. Predicting an invention implies:
A) that one develops a detailed conception of how the invented device will work.
and B) the invention being predicted is itself a detailed conception.

These are two statements that, according to the argument, would follow from the claim : "one can predict an invention." in other words, it follows that one can one can develop a detailed conception of a detailed conception, which the author seems to imply is paradoxical. Isn't that exactly what (C) says? The authors the hypothesis by showing that the implications of the of the hypothesis, taken together, are incompatible/paradoxical, and thus, false.

[ohthatpatrick]

I have a couple issues with (C):

1. Where is there a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a claim that is meant to explain why something has occurred / is occurring.

I hear a loud noise outside and I hypothesize that two cats are fighting. Cosmologists hypothesize that the universe went through a dramatic inflationary stage shortly after the Big Bang.

I don't see any hypothesis here. No one is offering a descriptive explanation for a given phenomenon.

2. Where does the author demonstrate the FALSEHOOD of implications?

The author demonstrates that two implications contradict each other; that's different. In a contradiction, at least one of the two claims would have to be false, but that's not the same as demonstrating that both of them are false.

If the author had indicated the falsehood of implications, he would have said at some point "but inventing does NOT mean developing a detailed conception" or "predicting does NOT entail developing a conception of the device".

Hope this helps.

[Jahma002]

The attention is on the wrong part. Notice (C) states an aggressive approach COUNTERING, while (B) is stating the author INFERS.

Look at the authors premise. The author uses definitions to infer. "But clearly, then, the notion of predicting an invention is self-contradicting"

You see the difference?

It can even say "then the notion is false" and still be B rather than C.

C can in certain terms define the stimulus, but another detail you have to pay attention when answering questions is the question stem: it says "most accurately", which tips B over C.

Other choices are explained well by the above replies.