LSAT Explanation PT 35, S4, Q18: Philosopher: Scientists talk about the pursuit

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning in the philosopher's argument is flawed because the argument 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first summarize and analyze the philosopher's argument in the passage. The philosopher claims that scientists, like most people, are self-interested. As a result, their professional activities are mostly aimed at personal career enhancement and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth. Consequently, the philosopher concludes that the activities of the scientific community as a whole are largely directed toward enhancing the status of the community and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth. The argument's structure consists of two premises and one conclusion:

Premise 1: Scientists are self-interested.

Premise 2: Most scientists' activities are directed toward personal career enhancement and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth.

Conclusion: The activities of the scientific community as a whole are largely directed toward enhancing the status of the community and only incidentally toward the pursuit of truth.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Do the activities of most individual scientists accurately represent the activities of the scientific community as a whole?"

Now, let's discuss the question type and answer choices. The question type is Flaw, asking us to identify the flaw in the philosopher's reasoning.

Answer choice (A) is incorrect because the argument doesn't infer that each and every scientist has a certain characteristic from the premise that most scientists have that characteristic. Instead, the argument makes a judgment about the scientific community as a whole.

Answer choice (B) is the correct answer choice. The philosopher's reasoning is flawed because it improperly draws an inference about the scientific community as a whole from a premise about individual scientists. This is an error of composition.

Answer choice (C) is incorrect because the philosopher doesn't presume that personal career enhancement never advances the pursuit of truth. The argument allows for the possibility that career-enhancement activities can result in activities that pursue truth, even if only incidentally.

Answer choice (D) is incorrect because the term "self-interested" is used consistently throughout the argument and doesn't take advantage of any ambiguity in its meaning.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect because the argument is about the relationships of parts and wholes, not about cause and effect. The reasoning described in this answer choice doesn't match the philosopher's reasoning in the passage.