QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported
- Few scientists have found evidence that global warming is unlikely.
- The conventional wisdom is that global warming is happening.
- A scientist will get much recognition if they overthrow conventional wisdom.
ANALYSIS: Based on the three facts above, we can say that researchers have a strong incentive to disprove global warming. And yet no one has found such disproof, despite the incentive.
- The stimulus didn’t mention “accepted standard of scientific debate”. This answer is probably trying to make you think of “scientific consensus”, a term often used in media discussions of global warming.
- CORRECT. This is supported. It’s a fair assumption that scientists like recognition for their work (who doesn’t?). And, predictions of global warming are “widely accepted”. So disproving global warming would be disproving the conventional wisdom. And the stimulus said that overthrowing conventional wisdom brings great recognition.
- This isn’t supported. The stimulus only said that global warming’s predictions are widely accepted, and haven’t been disproven. But that’s not the same as conclusive evidence of the truth of something. Lack of disproof isn’t the same as 100% evidence of truth.
- This is a trap answer. The stimulus said skeptical scientists haven’t found opposing evidence. But they might have opposing hypotheses. They just would lack evidence for those hypotheses.
- The stimulus didn’t say what drives research. We only know recognition comes from overturning a consensus. We don’t know if you get much recognition for doing research that is consistent with conventional wisdom. (And global warming research is in line with conventional wisdom.)
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly