LSAT 143 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Popular science publications that explain new…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify

CONCLUSION: Popular science publications shouldn’t try to explain new scientific developments to a large audience.

REASONING: Writing that explains new scientific developments will either be wrong (due to metaphors) or it won’t reach a large audience (because it’s rigorous).

ANALYSIS: The author is saying that popular science shouldn’t try to reach a wide audience, because popular science authors have to use (often inaccurate) metaphors to do that.

So what? To prove the argument, the author should have said “we should not describe science in an inaccurate way” or something like that.

On principle questions there is generally a gap between what is true and what should be true.

___________

1. The author is saying we should avoid the kind of writing that uses metaphors. “Balancing” metaphors doesn’t fit with the argument.
2. This just tells us a fact about scientific arguments. We don’t need a fact. We need a principle that tells us what we should do.
3. CORRECT. This principle lets us decide what to do. We know that reaching a wide audience forces us to use inaccurate metaphors.
   Therefore this answer tells us that it’s better to be accurate even if we can’t reach a wide audience.
4. This principle tells us the opposite of what we’re looking for. The argument said that we should not try to reach a wide audience.
5. This answer just tells us a fact. We’re looking for a principle that tells us what we should do.
   Further, it doesn’t matter if even rigorous writing must have some metaphors. It only matters if rigorous writing has fewer and more accurate metaphors than writing meant for a wide audience.