Q22

[LolaC289]

Wow I think maybe I am among the less than a few people who got this wrong...I chose B, the sun. But I kind of know that if my thinking process is right then C should be correct as well. My back-up is line 36, where the author clearly mentions the mass of sun being one of the auxiliary assumptions.

In line 26 from passage A, disturbing force is described as the one of the additional "auxiliary assumptions" which scientist need, to make certain predictions according to a theory.

Thus it seems to me that all the stuff that is mentioned in line 36-39 could all be right since they are auxiliary assumptions based on which scientist in passage B made prediction on Newton's laws.

Can someone explain why the Neptune is the only correct answer?

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure, the context of "disturbing forces" is a discussion of what happens when one of our predictions fails. We ask ourselves whether one of our assumptions was wrong:
- Are the theories we relied on correct theories?
- Did our instruments function properly?
- Is there some disturbing force that's occurring that's affecting our prediction?

In psg B, there were two predictions that failed.

For the Uranus example, the prediction failed because there WAS a disturbing force affecting the prediction (Neptune).

For the Mercury example, the prediction failed because the theory being relied on (Newtonian physics) was actually incorrect.


I think you're saying that (B) could be an answer because, hypothetically, they MIGHT have miscalculated the mass of the sun and so that could have thrown off their calculations.

But the mass of the sun DIDN'T throw off anyone's calculation in psg B. So while the mass of the sun COULD, in some other story, be a disturbing force, there was nothing in psg B about the sun that illustrated a disturbing force.

Meanwhile, Neptune is described in psg B as an unknown entity whose gravitational force threw off scientists' calculation. That story is an illustration of a disturbing force.

Hope this helps.

[LolaC289]

Sure, the context of "disturbing forces" is a discussion of what happens when one of our predictions fails. We ask ourselves whether one of our assumptions was wrong:

Thanks for your kind reply, ohthatpatrick!

However, I do have a different understanding on this.

The question specifically asks what "disturbing force" is in line 26. So I don't think we should qualify the scope to only the circumstance where our prediction fails, although this is illustrated by the author of passage A immediately after line 26, which the question is referring to.

Line 26 says: "When scientists actually derive a theory’s predictions, they almost always need diverse additional 'auxiliary' premises, which appeal to other theories, to the correct functioning of instrumentation, to the absence of disturbing forces, etc."

So in my understanding, as long as scientists are deriving predictions from a theory, and they use the existence or non-existence of disturbing force as one of the premises or context of their predictions, those should all considered as "disturbing forces". And we shouldn't limit the meaning to just ones that in particular made the predictions fail, because that seems to be narrowing the author's intentions arbitrarily.

Although I think Neptune is obviously one of the "disturbing forces" as well, but the sun and other stuff are explicitly mentioned as additional premises in line 35-39 of passage B, so I just chose the sun and moved on without even looking at Neptune.

I saw questions in RC where test writers ask for a specific meaning of certain words or phrases, although they sometimes rely on context or other sentences appearing later or before those words for further explanation, but sometimes they don't and even punishes who those who do so.

For example, RC Question 10 in PT67, when they ask about the "received attitudes" mentioned in line 18, they only ask for meaning of the "received attitudes" appear in line 18 which addresses "simple societies". Incorrect answer choices A and B are "received attitudes" as well, but are for the !Kung people in particular and is discussed in sentences following line 18 but not in line 18 itself.

Question Discussion see: https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q10-t6911.html

For me the same principle apply here. If we treat disturbing forces as only apply to why the prediction fails, the correct answer should be Neptune. But aren't we qualify the scope too narrow? All the disturbing forces that scientist have considered in making this prediction should all be counted as disturbing forces, if we just read line 26 of passage B.

Maybe Neptune is a better answer than sun, because it is the "most clearly illustrated" one, comparing to the others?

Appreciation for any future thoughts on this question!

[snoopy]

Sure, the context of "disturbing forces" is a discussion of what happens when one of our predictions fails. We ask ourselves whether one of our assumptions was wrong:

For me the same principle apply here. If we treat disturbing forces as only apply to why the prediction fails, the correct answer should be Neptune. But aren't we qualify the scope too narrow? All the disturbing forces that scientist have considered in making this prediction should all be counted as disturbing forces, if we just read line 26 of passage B.

Maybe Neptune is a better answer than sun, because it is the "most clearly illustrated" one, comparing to the others?

Appreciation for any future thoughts on this question!

The scope wouldn't be too narrow if you were looking at the disturbing force with the most impact on the predictions because the scientists accounted for the sun and other planets EXCEPT Neptune. Lines 36 mention other forces that were already considered. The "absence of disturbing forces" (line 26) is referring to the assumptions that were not considered, and line 37-39 mention how one of the assumptions was that no other planets were near Uranus. Only when the scientists discovered disturbing force Neptune were they able to correct their predictions (line 50).