LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8919
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#22649
Question #2: Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (C).

Here’s a catch-22: When explaining new developments in science to a wide audience, science publications need to “dumb down” their language, which comes at the expense of accurate reporting. But if they try to be more scientifically “accurate,” these publications fail to reach a wide audience. The solution? According to the author, the solution is to give up trying to explain new developments in science to a wide audience. (It is no secret that the LSAT is fairly elitist in its bias against popular opinion, which comes through in this particular question.)

At a more abstract level, this is an argument where the author weighs two competing objectives, and concludes that one of them takes priority over the other. We are asked to identify a principle, that, if true, would strengthen this conclusion. Note that the question stem is a Strengthen—PR, not a Justify—PR because of the presence of the word “most” in the question stem, which weakens the force required of the correct answer. In a Strengthen—PR question, the correct answer will provide a premise that, when applied to the specific situation in the stimulus, helps support the conclusion.

As a general rule, when prephrasing a principle that can be used to draw the conclusion, look for any logical gaps or deficiencies in the argument that need to be fixed. Here, the conclusion lacks any support: one of two competing objectives is prioritized over the other, but the author fails to explain why. The correct answer choice must therefore force this choice, ideally by establishing that accuracy in reporting trumps popular outreach. Answer choice (C) contains a statement that is closest to this prephrase.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice seems attractive, because it alludes to a solution to the dilemma described in the stimulus: publications should balance the use of metaphors with more rigorous writing. However, because this principle would lead to a vastly different conclusion from the one suggested in the stimulus, answer choice (A) is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice contains a statement of fact, which is not a principle. Just because more recent developments are harder to explain to a wide audience does not mean that they should not be explained to such an audience at all.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, as it properly determines that accuracy in scientific reporting is more important than reaching a wide audience. Well, since it is impossible to do both, this principle would immediately force the conclusion that popular scientific publications give up trying to explain new developments in science to a wide audience.

As a side note, when you come across a double-negative (“it is better to fail to reach a wide audience than to be inaccurate”), immediately simplify it and deduce the positive statement—“it is better to be accurate than to reach a wide audience.” Test makers are notorious for using double- and triple-negatives in their language, which is clearly an attempt to confuse and derail the reader. Do not fall into their trap! Slow down and simplify such statements before examining their significance in context.

Answer choice (D): This is the Opposite answer. If reaching a wide audience is more important than being accurate, this would undermine the author’s position and justify the opposite conclusion to the one reached.

Answer choice (E): The fact that some rigorous explanations of scientific concepts require the use of metaphors has no bearing on the issue at hand. The author neither assumes nor rejects the view that metaphors could play a role conveying science accurately.
 g_lawyered
  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: Sep 14, 2020
|
#90177
Hi P.S.
Even though I got this question correct and my reasoning was similar to the explanation posted, I have a question about the premise. The 2nd to last sentence has conditional reasoning which I translated to:
Rigorous :arrow: science and NO audience

Contrapositive: Audience or NO science :arrow: Rigorous

Since answer choice C doesn't have any conditional reasoning, I inferred from the conditional reasoning that having the science right meant being accurate. That is why I picked answer choice C. But as I review the explanation, I don't see that writing out the contrapositive is helpful in this type of question. I think I would've answered the question quicker if I didn't write out the conditional reasoning. This is where I'm having difficulty. Determining when conditional reasoning is important/need to translate it to get to the correct answer and when it is not. Can someone please advise when conditional reasoning is needed and when it's not? :-?

Thanks in advance
 g_lawyered
  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: Sep 14, 2020
|
#90178
** Correction I meant to write: **
Contrapositive: Audience and NO Science :arrow: NOT Rigorous
User avatar
 evelineliu
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: Sep 06, 2021
|
#90195
Hi G,

You would not need to do conditional reasoning or diagram the second to last sentence in this question. It's hard to create a blanket rule of when to use conditional reasoning and when not to, but this Principle question will not be made easier through conditional reasoning. Instead, we're looking for a principle to justify the argument and fill in a logical leap in the stimulus.

Hope that helps,
Eveline

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.