LR Question 20 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Paula: Earthlike planets seem to be the rule rather than…
QUESTION TYPE: Point at Issue: Disagree
ARGUMENTS: Paula says that most planets are like earth and so alien scientists likely will understand the same concepts as humans, and develop the same technologies, such as the radio.
Ashley says that our concepts and discoveries are based on our biology so we can’t assume aliens have the same technologies, including radio. So it’s useless to search for aliens using the radio.
ANALYSIS: On point at issue questions you need something where one person says yes, and the other says no. A lot of the wrong answers will be about something where one person gave no opinion. This is the question where both people gave an opinion:
“Will aliens have developed the same tech as humans?”
- Paula: Yes, alien scientists would probably understand the same things as us.
- Ashley: No, our science is based on our biology. Aliens would have different biology and hence difference science.
Because technology (and not the search for life) is the central point for both people, you should look for an answer based on technology.
___________
- CORRECT. Paula agrees. Whereas Ashley thinks that our technology is unique to our biology and that aliens would likely have developed different technologies.
- Ashley says no. And Paula gave no opinion about alien legal and political systems. She might agree those would be different.
- Ashley agrees with this. But Paula doesn’t say anything about this. And, when you think about it, who would completely disagree with this answer? For example, a helmet is a piece of technology. We have them because we have heads. If a species had no heads, we would not expect them to have helmets.
So Paula could hold her beliefs while still agreeing with a basic version of this answer: she would think our tech was mostly universal but a few aspects would be based on biology. “Influenced” is a weak word. - The issue is not does life exist. The issue is whether we can detect this life with radio waves. Both people might agree life exists: Ashley’s point is we can’t detect it with radio waves.
-
There are two problems with this answer:
- Ashley didn’t say all searching for intelligent life is a waste. She said searching for it with radio waves is a waste.
- Paula might actually not agree we should spend more money. She might think we’re spending exactly the right amount of money.
Recap: The question begins with “Paula: Earthlike planets seem to be the rule rather than”. It is a Point at Issue question. Learn more about LSAT Point at Issue questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Point at Issue Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Point at Issue questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers point at issue questions.
I went with A, but my only potential hiccup outside that was a super cynical viewpoint potential lending credence to E.
Ashely: “Using radio telescopes to search for Intelligent life is a waste of time and money.”
She could believe this even if she thinks some species would have developed similar (and radio telescope detectable) technology. The context before the statement makes it seem likely she means to say the reason spending money searching is a waste, is because she thinks it won’t turn up life. But it’s also plausible that she thinks the search for intelligent life is a waste altogether. She starts by dunking on the assumption that all intelligent life would have similar technology, but she doesn’t necessarily say it’s likely no one will make similar technology. Frankly there’s no real substance to assume she thinks that it won’t ever happen, she’s more criticizing the assumption that it always happens. Only her last line leads us to believe she thinks it never happens, but I still had some consternation with that.
She could have been thinking
– It’s naive to assume tech will be the same all the time, because tech is based on biology
– [some biology might be similar, in which case we’d expect radio technology to be able to find it]
– I don’t give a crap about aliens, looking for them with radio waves is a waste of money
She’d be quite the lady, but I didn’t think it was fully impossible.
If she believed this then A becomes wrong, because we had wrongly inferred that she cared about finding aliens and that was why she considered it a waste of time. In fact she was just pointing out the biology assumption was naive, but also thought (note she doesn’t use words like ‘thus’) looking for aliens in general is a waste of time.
For me to get to A I had say “it’s likely she’s not an extreme critic, and her belief that it’s a waste of time is meant to be because she thinks none will be radio wave detectable, rather than because she thinks any look for extra terrestrials is weak”.
But still all the other answers are wrong, so it led me back to A. E is wrong because ‘more’. Frankly Paula could be happy with less even if it seems unlikely. There’s just no context for us to read into. C is wrong because Paula may believe cognitive makeup matters too, but perhaps thinks aliens won’t be so different in cognitive makeup from us (that seems to be the general belief as you can see by alien depictions everywhere lol). So A is the most satisfying answer even if it doesn’t feel ironclad.
The key to locking in A over E is distinguishing what Paula and Ashley actually disagree about through their conversation than hypothesizing what Ashley’s views might be.
Ashley argues science and technology are shaped by cognition and physiology, meaning alien technology might not resemble ours. Yes, she doesn’t explicitly state that no alien civilization could ever develop radio communication – only implies that it is naive to assume they inevitably would (and answer A leaves room for this because of “probable”). This is an important distinction because Paula’s argument is based on the idea that intelligent aliens developed radio technology, while Ashley’s response challenges that assumption.
It’s true that Ashley could have a cynical view of aliens etc overall, but note that here she specifically says using RADIO TELESCOPES is a waste. You cannot assume from this that she thinks searching for alien life is a waste altogether. Why? Because the entire context of their dialogue pertains to technology and radio communication, and whether aliens have developed these in a similar way as humans. The assumption that Ashley might be cynical towards extraterrestrial life altogether is not a reasonable inference from the passage. Maybe she does indeed think so, but there is no way for us to know that. She thinks the assumption about development of technology and radio communication is flawed, and thus that using radio telescopes wouldn’t be useful, but that doesn’t tell us anything about what she thinks about other methods of search.
Paula also never agrees, as you said, that more funding should be spent – she simply claims that we can expect to detect signs of alien life through radio telescopes. So their disagreement is about the likelihood of aliens developing radio communication, not about scientific funding priorities. E would still be wrong even if there wasn’t “more”, because as I explained above, we don’t know that Ashley thinks it’s a waste of time and money to search for aliens altogether.
Your instincts to choose A were correct, but I think where you might be getting tripped up is that you’re inserting your own assumptions about what you think their views on the topic as a whole would be, rather than just the specific aspect discussed in the stimulus. A is the correct answer on its own merits rather than just because of the reasoning that “Paula’s not an extreme critic … etc”. A is simply just the only thing we know that they actually disagree on out of the answer choices.
Let me know if you have further questions!