LSAT 105 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q15

LR Question 15 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Ideally, scientific laws should display the virtues …

QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported

FACTS:

• Scientific laws should be precise and general, like physics laws.
• Social sciences often have to use imprecise terms like “class” and “republicanism”.
• Also, social science laws usually apply only to certain social systems rather than all societies.

ANALYSIS: The passage makes two important points:

1. Precision and generality are virtues.
2. Social sciences often can’t fully achieve those virtues because of their subject matter.

You might be tempted to think that they’re leading you towards thinking that social science isn’t really scientific. But that’s a trap!

The author is describing a limitation, not questioning whether social science is scientific.

Think about this: Ideally, athletes are fast and strong. Marathon runners are generally less strong than weightlifters because of the nature of their sport.

You would absolutely not infer that marathon runners aren’t truly athletes.

Or let’s take another example: Ideally, judges write perfectly clear opinions. But some opinions, by the nature and complexity of the case, are ambiguous.

You wouldn’t say that those ambiguous opinions aren’t really judicial opinions.

The stimulus makes the same kind of point. Different subject matters impose different constraints. Notice phrases like “often HAVE to use” and “the only ones POSSIBLE”. This indicates that social science is restricted from these virtues – not that it strives to be “unscientific”.

Also note that precision and generality are never imposed as requirements of scientific laws. You don’t HAVE to have them to be a scientific law. They are virtues: you should display them. Nothing tells us that if you don’t display them, or struggle to display them, you’re not a scientific law.

___________

1. CORRECT. The stimulus calls precision and generality “virtues” and says scientific laws should ideally possess them. If something is a virtue, then, all else equal, having it is preferable.
2. It never suggests abandoning social science subject matter. In fact, it says the limitations stem from the nature of the subject matter, not from social scientists making poor choices.
3. These terms are imprecise because of the nature of the subject matter. So we have no implication that greater precision is realistically possible or should happen.
4. The stimulus says laws limited to certain social systems are typically the only ones possible. It doesn’t suggest that social scientists aren’t trying hard enough.

5. This is exactly the trap I talked about above! I’m sure a lot of you picked this one. In addition to the reasoning I mentioned in the analysis, also think about the fact that the stimulus introduces:

   1. Virtues of scientific laws
   2. “However …” this is how social science struggles

   That implies that they’re talking about social science laws as a scientific law. The structure alone shows us the opposite of this answer.