LSAT 146 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q19

LR Question 19 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Science teacher: An abstract knowledge of science is…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: High school science courses should teach practical scientific things, like how to evaluate science-based arguments. Schools should de-emphasize abstract science.

REASONING: It’s rare that adults need an abstract knowledge of science.

ANALYSIS: This sounds like a sensible argument. But the LSAT has made a classic error: an implied comparison.

The only evidence is about what is useful. We’re told that abstract scientific knowledge is not useful. The author proposes we evaluate arguments instead. But they never tell us whether that is useful. Maybe argument evaluation is just as impractical as abstract knowledge!

The necessary assumption will be that argument evaluation is at least somewhat useful.

___________

1. This is a ridiculous answer. If you interpret it literally, it means schools should teach nothing but the most important things. That would cut out the bulk of the curriculum, because by definition only 1-2 skills can be “most” useful.
    
   In any case, this negation has no impact on the argument.
   Negation: It is acceptable for schools to teach highly useful skills even if those skills are not literally the “most” important skills.
2. The negation of this answer supports the argument. But the negation is supposed to destroy the argument.
   Negation: Abstract scientific knowledge is less important than learning to evaluate practical, science-based arguments.
3. This is a very tempting answer. But remember, when you negate you need to make the answer only slightly untrue. In this case, the negation of the answer has almost no impact.
    
   Note especially that the comparison group is “adults who have no knowledge of science at all”. But the argument isn’t proposing that students learn zero science. They’re just proposing that we devote more resources to practical issues.
   Negation: Adults with an abstract knowledge of science are 0.0000000000000000001% better at evaluating science based arguments.
4. If you negate this, it’s pretty useless. The author is saying we should do more practical teaching. Their argument doesn’t depend on us currently doing no practical teaching.
   Negation: One course in Alaska teaches students how to evaluate science based arguments. No other high school has a course like that.
5. CORRECT. If you negate this, the argument falls apart. Note that when you negate “sometimes” to “never”, there’s no wiggle room. Never always equals none. Whereas answers that negate from “never” or “no” to “some” are ambiguous. “Some” can be as low as 0.0000000001%, so it’s not a powerful statement.
   Negation: It’s never useful for adults to be able to evaluate science based arguments.