LSAT Explanation PT 30, S2, Q26: People ought to take into account

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning above is most susceptible to criticism because the author 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The author's conclusion is that people ought to take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing the scientific value of that discipline. The premise provided to support this conclusion is the example of chemistry, which has its origins in alchemy, a group whose superstitions and appeals to magic dominated the early development of chemical theory.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument would be: "Do the blemished origins of a discipline have a significant impact on its current scientific value?"

Now, let's discuss the question type and the answer choices. This is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the flaw in the author's reasoning. We need to find the answer choice that best explains why the argument is susceptible to criticism.

a) Fails to establish that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable.

This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not need to establish this relationship. The focus of the argument is on disciplines with blemished origins, not unblemished ones.

b) Fails to consider how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists mentioned.

This is the correct answer. The argument assumes that the blemished origins of chemistry (alchemy) have a bearing on its current scientific value. However, it does not consider the possibility that chemistry has evolved significantly since its origins, and that the current theories and practices might be vastly different from those of the alchemists. If this were the case, the relevance of the blemished origins would be diminished.

c) Uses an example to contradict the principle under consideration.

This answer choice is incorrect because the example provided (chemistry) does not contradict the principle. Instead, it is used to support the conclusion that the blemished origins should be taken into account.

d) Does not prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect.

This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not need to establish this relationship. The focus is on the impact of blemished origins on the scientific value of a discipline, not on the origins of disciplines that are not scientifically valuable.

e) Uses the word "discipline" in two different senses.

This answer choice is incorrect because the word "discipline" is used consistently in the passage, and there is no ambiguity in its meaning.

In summary, the correct answer is B, as it points out the flaw in the author's reasoning by highlighting the lack of consideration for the differences between current theories and practices in chemistry and those of its alchemical origins.