LR Question 26 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Before 1986 physicists believed they could describe the…
QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen
CONCLUSION: There is a fifth universal force: mutual repulsion between particles of matter.
REASONING: This would explain why we have measured smaller amounts of gravity than theory would predict.
ANALYSIS: If you strip aside the science-talk, this question isn’t hard. The correct answer simply tells us that the idea of a fifth force doesn’t contradict any other established findings.
That helps by showing that the finding is plausible.
___________
- It doesn’t matter when the equipment became available. The researchers had it and were able to use it for their experiments.
- CORRECT. This would support the idea that a fifth force exists: it isn’t contradicted by any other scientific findings.
- This would weaken the idea that it is a separate universal force. We’re arguing the opposite.
- This provides an alternate explanation for the mis-measured gravity and it weakens the argument.
- This just tells us about the context of the time when the discovery was made. It doesn’t affect the argument.
More Resources for Strengthen Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Strengthen questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers strengthen questions.
isn’t A also wrong b/c it’s irrelevant since 1970s is before 1986, and so whatever equipment used before that only contributed for the view of there being 4 forces, not 5, and this answer would be stronger had it said 1990s? Though if it said 1990s, it’d still be weaker than B since even if it’s extremely sophisticated it doesn’t say much about the hypothesis. Could someone confirm this reasoning? Thanks!
You’re right that A is irrelevant – physicists getting access to new technology long before 1986 isn’t related to why new discoveries and theories emerged in/after 1986.
You raise an interesting point about the answer being stronger if it had said 1990s, or even 1986. The use of more sophisticated technology in/after 1986 would add some minor credibility to the experiments and explain why this fifth force wasn’t detected earlier. But yes, the use of new technology wouldn’t be as significant as the fact that the “fifth force” fits in with our other understanding of the universe.
Just as an addition, I thought A actually weakens the argument – perhaps the theories were wrong bc the equipment was not available when the theories were postulated and all the experiments were being done inaccurately! If that was true, we could just say that the differences in experimental results are coming solely from the fact that we are now just correcting the previous theories..just a thought.
That’s good critical thought to have outside the LSAT, but be careful when making these kinds of inferences on the LSAT. When we’re given a premise in a stimulus or a statement in an answer choice that involves some level of calculation or measurement, we have to assume that it’s precise. So, for example, we can’t counter (A) by saying “well, maybe the experimental data were off because of equipment issues”.
Thank you so much for these explanations! They are definitely saving my bacon right now, as I only have a starter package from 7 sage and it only includes video explanations for 9 practice exams. Although it takes a little more work to read and click, the understanding is well worth it! I am sure that all others who have found this site would agree.
Thanks! There are (paid) PDF versions here if you’d like something you can scroll through: https://lsathacks.com/books/