Q22 - Astrologer: Although some scientists have claimed

[jgmartin82]

PT68, S2, Q22 (Analyze Argument Structure - Identify the Role)

(B) is correct

This is a determine the function question. It’s all about deconstructing the argument. We can expect a couple things. First, the argument is going to be at least a bit tricky to deconstruct since that’s our only task. Second, making an argument tricky to deconstruct often involves burying the conclusion somewhere in the middle; while that’s not guaranteed, it is a tendency we should be on the lookout for.

First things first for deconstructing arguments, find the conclusion! We start off with Although some scientists... this is classic LSAT language _ Although some think X, Y - we should be anticipating a counterpoint followed by a conclusion or premise. Our anticipated counterpoint is that scientists don’t think astrologic signs correlate with personality types; this is obvious as scientists are squares, man. The astrologer says that this is unjustified. This is just as we expected, this sounds like conclusion. It uses some borrowed language this is unjustified. Let’s be explicit. It says:

Scientists are unjustified in claiming that astro sign and p. type have no correlation

We can anticipate some support will follow. We get a Since X, Y structure, which is a premise _ conclusion structure itself. The language is tough but we can think through it to get to this:

Science can’t distinguish between pers. types --> science can’t talk about correlations between p. types and other things (like astro signs)

Notice how we’re a little bit liberal with the rephrasing. Typically we need to be careful with these changes but for this problem type, we only need to know how the argument fits together.Don’t go nuts, but we can be a little bit more carefree with the specific wording.

That last bit is what we’re trying to place. How does it relate to the original conclusion? Well which supports the other? In fact the sentence in question supports the original conclusion. So we’ve got a P-->IC-->C setup with our piece of interest taking the IC spot. Phew! At least the hard part is over right? Onto the questions!

(A) Wait, I thought the hard part was over. Keep it for now.

(B) Ahem, keep it.

(C) is incorrect. It is not the overall conclusion. Eliminate.

(D) is incorrect. The argument isn’t discrediting it, it’s part of the argument.

(E) is incorrect. It is not a specific instance of anything. It’s a general broad claim.

Okay back to (A) and (B). We know what we’re looking for, so let’s just be patient and unpack this tough language.

(A) It is a claim offered in support for a conclusion... check; that is in turn offered in support... no! It’s offered in support of the final conclusion, not a conclusion that goes onto support something else. Eliminate.

(B) It is a conclusion for which support is offered... check; that in turn is offered in support for the overall conclusion.Yes. This was just a nasty way of describing an intermediate conclusion.

[JorieB701]

Curious, what is E describing? A premise, right? Is it describing a supporting example?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, “Supporting example” is a great way to put it. (E) would describe something like this:

One time, when Susan left her kitten near a stack of knives, the kitten cut itself pretty badly. Other parents have similar stories about leaving their babies around cacti. Thus, one should never put something cute near something sharp.

[MichaelQ215]

Good post for science element with astrology