LSAT 133 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Meyer was found by his employer to have committed…

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: The University revoked Meyer’s PhD.

REASONING: The University found that Meyer had committed scientific fraud by falsifying data. They also found that he had not falsified data for his PhD.

ANALYSIS: The information in this stimulus is a bit confused. I’ll make a summary:

1. Meyer’s employer (not the university) found that he had committed scientific fraud.
2. The university confirmed that Meyer had committed fraud.
3. The university investigated whether Meyer had also committed scientific fraud during his thesis.
4. They concluded he had not.
5. They took away the PhD anyway.

We don’t know why the university took away Meyer’s PhD, since he didn’t commit fraud while getting it. The correct answer says that the University should take away someone’s PhD if they commit any scientific fraud, during or after the PhD. Meyer did commit fraud, so away goes his PhD.

___________

1. The University did not find any evidence that Meyer committed fraud while working on his PhD. The fraud they did find occurred afterwards.
2. The University isn’t trying to decide whether to admit Meyer. They already admitted him and gave him a PhD.
3. We don’t even know where Meyer was working. It sounds like “his employer” was someone else apart from the University. The University verified the employer’s finding. Then the University took away his PhD. They didn’t “dismiss” him.
4. CORRECT. Here we go. Meyer did commit scientific fraud even if he didn’t commit fraud while working on his PhD. So the university was right to revoke his PhD.
5. This doesn’t tell us when someone should lose their PhD.