Blemished origins

Question

Pple ought to take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing scientific value of discipline. Take, for example, chemistry. It must be considered that many of its landmark results were obtained by alchemists- a gp whose superstitions and appeals to magic dominated the early part of chemical theory.

Reasoning above is most susceptible to criticism because author:
(a) fails to establish that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable
(b) fails to consider how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists mentioned
(c) uses example to contradict principle under consideration
(d) does not prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect
(e) uses word "discipline" in two different senses.

ranga41 · Answer

C??

gotoknow3 · Answer

I will go with D

Bhai · Answer

A.

vivek123 · Answer

'C'.

Arsene_Wenger · Answer

i'm with (E). 'disciplines' Vs '...values of discipline' mean different things.

ronybtl · Answer

The OA is B. Does anyone know why it is B and not A or D?

E is not correct because the definition of discipline is consistent ie a body of knowledge.

C is not correct because the example was indeed used to sppt the principle.

D appears incorrect because the cause and effect is reversed. In qn stem, the cause is blemished origins and the effect is low value of discipline. In E, the cause is low value of discipline and the effect is blemished origins. Is this analysis valid?

ronybtl · Answer

Bumping this qn up the thread.

Can anyone answer as to why A and D are incorrect?

christoph · Answer

conclusion: Pple ought to take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing scientific value of discipline.

evidence: It must be considered that many of its landmark results were obtained by alchemists- a gp whose superstitions and appeals to magic dominated the early part of chemical theory. 

thats the line of reasoning of the author. now we want to attack it ! where do we start ? we start with the evidence, because it supports the conclusion. it is totally absurd to compare alchemists with current chemists. thats B) ! why not A) ? the author does not even mentions UNblemished origins. how should it attack his line of reasoning ? maybe its true maybe not, doesnt matter in this case. and D) ? it is out of scope ! the author does not want to prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect. he wants to prove that one must consider a discipline's blemished origins to assess its scientific value. thats different !

nakib77 · Answer

I got A as well.
I don't think OA is correct.

ronybtl · Answer

Christoph: Thks so much for the lucid explanation

Najib: Doublchecked answer to be B.

The qn and answer are from an LSAT official publication (PrepTest30, Dec 1999, Section 2, qn 26). It should be reliable

Blemished origins

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards