How do you answer a question when there is no right answer?
This is about question PT123.S2.Q16. Feel free to follow along
The right answer is stated as D. However, Sandra holds the opinion that mathematically precise claims are not inherently suspect on the basis of their precision, but answer D doesn't make this distinction. Answer D says "mathematically precise results that are not inherently suspect." Period. Not "not inherently suspect on the basis of their precision, but not inherently suspect period. We do not know that Sandra holds the opinion that mathematically precise claims are not inherently suspect AT ALL. Sandra might hold the opinion that these claims are not suspect on the basis of their precision, but rather their method for example. Sandra might hold the opinion that all science is unreliable because she doesn't trust the method. Sandra's statement could be followed with "instead, they should be doubted because all science is ridiculous and only magic 8 balls can or should be trusted to obtain any answer ever."
The passage then doesn't give support for Sandra's opinion on the right answer ... so how do you answer a question that has no right answers?
When I first walked through this, I was mad. How unfair! This LSAT point is just chance! This was close minded of me, really its an opportunity to further set yourself apart from other test takers. Instead, this is like a difficulty 6/5 question -> how to find the best answer when there is no right answer
A -> referencing the 61 percent is far too specific, Sandra would have to reference that specifically in order to have an opinion.
B -> same as A. Plus, Taylor might believe it is possible to determine this via some other method that isn't science, maybe if it was revealed to them in a dream.
C -> again, the study of verbal and nonverbal communication as an area is far too specific to presume ones opinion
E -> claims being false is never mentioned by either
Our solution is actually to dumb the answer choices down, and see whether a SHALLOWER understanding of them leads to agreement. After all, Sandra and Taylor are just average humans, not future lawyers and LSAT whizzes like you and me. Maybe they only understood each other at a more realistic, conversational level.
A -> research might reveal a very specific result
B -> it is possible to determine a very specific result
C -> science is an area where one cannot expect great precision
D -> some science can yield results that are not inherently suspect just because they're precise (this is difficult to dumb down too much without losing important elements of the answer choice though)
E -> If inherently suspect claims are usually false, then so are scientists (difficult to dumb down)
So whats wrong with these?
A -> Taylor says no, but we don't know what Sandra thinks. Obtaining a precise result IS NOT revealing a precise fact
B -> Same objection from before with regards to Taylor applies.
C -> Taylor would agree, but Sandra might not. We don't know if science is one of those areas where precision is commonplace. Many scientific disciplines may obtain precise results, but maybe the majority don't, so we can't expect it there.
D -> starts to work now!
E -> we are STILL not talking about being true or false in the statements, just acquiring precise results. This doesn't work
So D is the BEST answer, because its the LEAST WRONG (even though it is still wrong)
IMPORTANT: This kind of scenario does not occur often. Pretty much every time it happens I make an angry rant like this, and I have maybe 3-4 after having done all the preptests in circulation. But its always important to keep in mind that you're looking for the BEST answer, not the RIGHT answer. It is much more frequently that MANY answer choices strengthen, or weaken, etc etc. But only one strengthens/weakens/etc the MOST.
Best of luck studying! Homestretch incoming
