LSAT 7 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery.

REASONING:

• Serendipity = chance discoveries of valuable findings not purposely sought.
• Scientific research is now very expensive so researchers depend on large grants.
• Grant sponsors require clear projections of research outcomes. So researchers ignore anything not directly tied to their funded work.

ANALYSIS: The conclusion only follows if we assume that all serendipitous discoveries come from discoveries outside of the planned research. Or that only findings the investigator purposely seeks can bear on the funded research.

Otherwise, there would still be room for accidental discoveries even within the constraints of grant-funded projects.

___________

1. CORRECT. If the negation of this were true and unplanned findings can still relate to funded research, then serendipity could still happen.
   Negation: Some findings that an investigator does not purposely seek can directly bear on their research.
2. This focuses on the past but the stimulus is focused on current conditions. It doesn’t impact the conclusion.
   Negation: In the past, many investigators did not attempt to make clear predictions of outcomes.
3. Whether or not researchers are happy with their research doesn’t affect whether serendipity is possible.
   Negation: Dependence on grants is not preventing investigators from conducting their preferred research.
4. This relates to grant success rates, which is off-topic. The argument is about those who do get grants.
   Negation: Some investigators who provide clear projections don’t receive any of the grants they apply for.
5. This assigns value to serendipity but doesn’t affect its possibility.
   Negation: The most valuable discoveries are not the product of serendipity.