Q11 - One approach to the question

[debbie.d.park]

I am having a hard time understanding why B (Objects posited for theoretical reasons only should never be designated as real.) is the correct answer. This seems totally irrelevant to me.

Can you please offer an explanation? Thank you in advance!

[aileenann]

Hi Debbie! I'll try my best to provide a satisfactory explanation, and I hope you'll chime in too if you have additional insights you can share with the board.

Let's backtrack and take a look at the argument briefly. Here, they tell us that we need to pick a principle to justify the reasoning. In the reasoning, we see that the argument is essentially that it would be flawed to pick real objects based on the most powerful science because most science posits at least some objects only on theoretical grounds. But what in the world do theoretical grounds have to do that is so bad. Does the author have any reason not to like theoretical grounds?

I think we're probably going to want something that connects up "theoretical grounds" as being undesirable for picking real objects.

(B) hits the nail on the head. It tells us why theoretical reasons should not be used to pick real objects. This provides a necessary link - in fact an assumption - that we need to make the argument true. I think it's helpful to realize that this sort of principle question is really just asking us for the assumption

I realize this is a particularly difficult question to understand because it uses quite abstract language and to my mind does not really map onto anything most people are familiar with. When you run into such situations, you might also think about trying to put in more familiar words. So for example, when they say real objects, think about something funny, or at least concrete, like "pink gorillas." That way you can visualize the argument, and probably the problems with the argument will be easier to digest.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have follow-up questions or if you'd like me to try to explain this is an alternative way

[geverett]

I'm going to try my hand at this, because while I got it right it did give me a bit of trouble.

Sentence 1: One way to answer the question of which objects discussed by science are real is to say that if something is real then it must be posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of science.

They set up a conditional relationship here in this first sentence that goes something like this:

real ---> entity posited by most explanatorily powerful theory

Sentence 2: However, most scientific theories contain entities that are posited solely on theoretical grounds, so the approach of designating as real only the most explanatorily powerful theories of science is flawed.

We are asked to make the authors conclusion follow from the information given meaning we are asked to make it air tight.

Basically the authors conclusion in the second sentence is saying that because most scientific theories (this includes the most explanatorily powerful theories) contain elements posited solely on theoretical grounds that you cannot designate as real all and only those things posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of science.

The gap we see here is between something being posited solely on theoretical grounds and designating something as real. The author is assuming that objects which are designated solely on theoretical grounds precludes someone from designating those objects as real.

I go to the answer choices with this in mind, and knowing that I must make the authors argument air tight.

(A) "enhances" There is nothing in this argument about the enhancement of a theory. This answer choice qualifies as out of scope. Get rid of it.
(B) This addresses the gap I mentioned above. ". . . theoretical reasons only . . ." The word "only" is synonymous with the word "solely" as mentioned in the second sentence of the argument. Please ask if you need further clarification on this answer choice.
(C) ". . . does not enhance . . ." Once again "enhancement" or "not enhancing" a theory is out of scope to the discussion in the stimulus. Get rid of it.
(D) What about classifying something as real? We need to justify the authors reasoning for not classifying as real those entities posited by the most explanatory powerful theories of science based on the fact that most theories contain objects which can be posited solely on theoretical grounds. This answer choice does nothing to bridge the gap mentioned in the argument. This answer choice only serves the weaken the premise mentioned in the second sentence about "most scientific theories contain entities posited solely on theoretical grounds" by saying that sometimes these theories should not just posit solely on theoretical grounds. This does not bridge the gap we need. Get rid of it.
(E) This can be a tempting answer choice in the moment, but it is ultimately wrong. In fact this statement is the opposite of what the author is claiming. Remember, the author is claiming that this statement (which is a rewording of the approach mentioned in the first sentence) is flawed. That is the conclusion of the author's argument. Let me know if you need any further clarification here.

[a3friedm]

would someone mind letting me know if I notated this properly?

Real → ST
ST (most) TG
__
AF (~Real)

Missing premise

TG → ~Real

Correct Answer Choice:
(B)Objects posited for theoretical reasons only should never be designated as real.

[ohthatpatrick]

would someone mind letting me know if I notated this properly?

Real → ST
ST (most) TG
__
AF (~Real)

Missing premise

TG → ~Real

Correct Answer Choice:
(B)Objects posited for theoretical reasons only should never be designated as real.

I think you did as good a job as one could trying to turn this argument into some conditional syllogism.

However, the parts of this argument don't actually fit up as well as your symbolism would imply.

For instance, you use "ST" initially to mean "the most explanatorily powerful theory of the science" and then later to signify "scientific theories". Those certainly aren't equivalent ideas, so we couldn't truly treat them as the same symbol.

Also, the first sentence is technically a bi-conditional statement. "All and only" is essentially the same as "if and only if", "then and only then", etc.

So the first conditional would really look like
Real <--> ST

I thought you did an admirable job of converting the conclusion "this approach is flawed" into "~Real".

One of the main stumbling blocks for most students in getting this question right is the fact that the conclusion is using 'borrowed language'.

We need to convert the conclusion (in our minds) from saying "this approach is flawed" to "the entities posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of the science should not be designated as real".

And so your symbolism cuts to the heart of that idea.

Nice work, although I would definitely encourage you NOT to try to symbolize this type of stuff.

[katl]

I have a question about B. The second premise only tells us that MOST scientific theories are posited solely on theoretical grounds. The first premise tells us to accept as real any object posited by the "most explanatory powerful theory of the science." Why should we assume overlap? Perhaps the objects that belong to the first premise do not belong to the group characterized by the second premise. If so, wouldn't answer B be irrelevant?

Is B correct because the question asks which of the answer choices is best?

Thanks in advance.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're exactly right. I always had a problem with this argument/set of answer choices as well because there's an unattended-to gap between "the most explanatorily powerful theory" and "most scientific theories".

We have to go with (B) not only because it's "most helps to justify" vs. "proves completely", but also because we know structurally that the "since most are theoretical" is the premise for "bad method of designating what's real".

So even though the author seems to make a dreadful leap from the first sentence to his premise, (B) still helps connect the relevance of his premise to his conclusion.

[WaltGrace1983]

I had trouble knocking out (D) yesterday but when I sat down today to look at this problem again I came to an interesting question. Since the argument is saying "most scientific theories contain entities posited solely on theoretical grounds," couldn't we knock out (D) just because it simply agrees with the premise without getting us to the conclusion? If we say that "most do X" can't we just assume that "some do ~X"? Wouldn't this be analogous to the relationship between (D) and the argument itself?

Also, (D) makes me a little apprehensive because of the word "should." Isn't there a logical rule about making definite arguments and having the word "should." As in, what we "should" do has no bearing on the argument unless the conclusion says that we "should" or "shouldn't" do something?

[maryadkins]

I had trouble knocking out (D) yesterday but when I sat down today to look at this problem again I came to an interesting question. Since the argument is saying "most scientific theories contain entities posited solely on theoretical grounds," couldn't we knock out (D) just because it simply agrees with the premise without getting us to the conclusion? If we say that "most do X" can't we just assume that "some do ~X"? Wouldn't this be analogous to the relationship between (D) and the argument itself?

You're half right, half wrong! You're 100% right that (D) doesn't link us to the conclusion, and that's the problem. We need something linking us to "real objects."

But what you said about "most do X" meaning "some don't do X" is actually NOT true. On the LSAT, saying "most cats are black" does not mean that some cats are not black. On the contrary, all cats can still be black. In other words, we don't use "most" and "some" like we do in real life (where, if I said, "most days it rains," I obviously mean that on some days it doesn't rain).

And you're right to be wary of "should." In this case it's okay"”I mean, the correct answer (b) also has "should""”but that's because we have a normative conclusion"”a conclusion that makes a kind of moral-type statement ("this approach is flawed"). If we had a purely factual argument, something like:

On rainy days, it always floods.

You wouldn't want an answer choice with "should" in it because this isn't that kind of argument.

Make sense?

[daijob]

Isn't B just repeating what the last sentence says?
Or is it because the last sentence includes "most" and B supports (or "justifies") it by saying "never"?

[maryadkins]

Yes (B) is supporting it, not repeating it. It basically justifies it by saying it slightly differently and that's a good thing for this kind of question.

[HannahM495]

I am SO confused about this question. I feel like I'm totally reading this differently than y'all and it's really frustrating :/ Sorry if this is a little convoluted but I honestly don't know how to describe my understanding succinctly!

I went into the answer choices under the impression that the conclusion of this argument was essentially: the approach favoring "the most explanatorily powerful theory" to simple "theoretical grounds" in assessing the reality of the object is FLAWED.
This approach is FLAWED because most theories depend on mere theoretical grounds.

So I'm gonna try to put this into super simple terms so I can at least express what I'm taking away from this. Essentially, there are multiple approaches out there to assess the "reality" of an object or "entity." The one described in the stimulus, the one that depends on "hard," super-mega-proven science, is flawed. It's flawed because a majority of theories contain "entities" (what the hell is this referring to anymore??) that are merely theoretical. They lack that necessary condition posited in the flawed approach.

So, to me, it seems like the author is coming from a perspective where they're saying "Ok, this approach necessitates that the most super-mega-proven science validates our hypothesis--if we can't make that work, our hypothesis is immediately and unequivocally undermined. That's dumb, because our hypotheses are correct, and we only employed theoretical grounds. We found real objects and we didn't need that fancy super science -- in fact, most theories don't need that fancy super science."

With this in mind, I ended up selecting A/C A (as I understood it): If an object is posited by a theory [a quick aside...WHAT DOES THIS EVEN MEAN? Theories don't posit objects. In this sense of the word, you can't "posit" and object. You can "posit" [[claim, postulate]] that an object is "real," but that verb and direct object literally don't go together like this. What is going on.] and this hypothesis contributes to our overall understanding/epistemology of the theory, it should be real, hands-down. That kind of seemed like something that would allow the author to make the claim I felt they were making above. It wasn't perfect, but I was also 100% sure B was WRONG -- B seems to support the claim made by the initial theory that the author is trying to discredit. (It still does to me.)

Does this make sense? Where am I going wrong here?

[WesleyC316]

I think people might be thinking too much when answering this question. I chose (B) within 30 seconds because the others just seemed irrelevant to me.

The argument is basically concluding that an approach is flawed because the theories used by the approach contain entities posited solely on "theoretical grounds". We need to justify that. Answer choice (B) and (D) are the only ones mentioning "theoretical", so it's gotta be between them.

(D) is saying a theory "should" do something, which is never talked about in the stimulus.

(B) is telling us how we should designate objects as real: those theoretical ones are not real. There goes the correct answer.

[LizaK873]

I didn't know what posited meant, so it was way harder than it actually was.
Posited: assume it's true.

How I simplified it:

Some people: object is real only if it's [posited] in best scientific theories.
Author: No no, most scientific theories has [posited] objects, and these objects are [posited] only with theoretical proof.

Simplifying it further (took awhile for me):
- Object is real only if best theories assume it is.
- No, most theories assume many objects as real only based on theoretical support, and nothing else.

---
The "argument" : If an object is assumed as real ONLY because it's theoretically supported, it's shouldn't be actually considered as real.

Assumed is different than saying an object IS real.
Analogy: "Assume that my dog ate my homework. Then I must do it again." VS "My dog actually ate my homework."
In reference to the paragraph:
- "If best theories say 'assume some object is true, then blahblah', then that some object should be considered real, b/c many best theories claim so!" VS
- "well theories assume it's true b/c of only theoretical reasons. so it's not good enough to say it's actually real".
---

Answer A: Any object that scientific theory treats as real, and also improves that theory itself, should be considered as real -- Now you can see that this still aligns with 'ONLY theoretically supported, nothing else', which is what needs to be negated.