PrincipleDiff: Easy
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: A scientist found evidence that went against her theory and didn't tell anyone; a colleague found out and accused her of being a fake.
Conclusion: The anthropologist's failure to report the negative test results constitutes professional fraud.
Reasoning: The chemist bases the charge on the fact that the anthropologist obtained a result that contradicted her hypothesis but chose to keep that information secret.
Analysis: To support the chemist's accusation, we need a rule that makes the anthropologist's behavior unacceptable regardless of her excuses. The chemist is focused on the act of non-disclosure itself. Look for a principle that establishes a strict requirement for researchers to report all experimental findings, even those that are negative or seem incorrect. The chemist's argument is strengthened if the professional standard is 'total transparency at all times' rather than 'transparency only when the data is perfect.'
Conclusion: The anthropologist's failure to report the negative test results constitutes professional fraud.
Reasoning: The chemist bases the charge on the fact that the anthropologist obtained a result that contradicted her hypothesis but chose to keep that information secret.
Analysis: To support the chemist's accusation, we need a rule that makes the anthropologist's behavior unacceptable regardless of her excuses. The chemist is focused on the act of non-disclosure itself. Look for a principle that establishes a strict requirement for researchers to report all experimental findings, even those that are negative or seem incorrect. The chemist's argument is strengthened if the professional standard is 'total transparency at all times' rather than 'transparency only when the data is perfect.'
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage3.In the absence of the anthropologist's reply, which one of the following principles, if established, would most support the chemist's charge?
Correct Answer
E
It directly supports the charge: if a scientist neglects to report any experiment that could be interpreted as disconfirming their hypothesis, that omission is fraud. Given the negative result and no report (and ignoring the reply), the chemist’s accusation is supported.
Upgrade Your Prep
Ready to go beyond free explanations?
LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.
Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal