Reading comp PrepTest 111 · Section 2 · Question 20

Topic: Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Philosophers of science prefer physics to biology (because physics is certain and predictable)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Philosophers of science's views:
    • They prefer to study things that are always true, so they prefer physics to biology (first and second sentences)
  • Comparisons, according to the author:
    • Science studies things that are always true, repeatable, and universal; it doesn't study things that are only sometimes true (second sentence)
    • Philosophers of science are more interested in the rate at which a mouse and an elephant fall than their evolutionary history (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "uneasy" (first sentence), "mistrust" (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Evolutionary biologists' views (evolution governed by universal laws) and other biologists' views (randomness might be part of biology)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Like the philosophers of science, evolutionary biologists have a distaste for randomness and have tried to construct their science based on universal laws (first through third sentences)
  • Example of the kinds of universal laws they make, c to the author:
    • The "struggle for existence" (third sentence)
  • Other biologists' view
    • Historical contingency is an important part of biology (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "intellectual disdain" (first sentence), "tried to emulate" (first sentence), "have questioned" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • An illustration of this debate is introduced (planets statement used to illustrate "universal laws")
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison between two statements that philosophers make, according to the author:
    • "All planets move in ellipses" is universal since it must apply to all planets, whether we know about them or not (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "the difference between" (first sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • The illustration is expanded and explained (swan statement illustrates the difference between determinists and nondeterminists)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison between two statements that philosophers make, according to the author (continued from the previous paragraph):
    • "All swans are white" would be universal for a biological determinist (since it would be determined by evolutionary laws), but it would not be universal for a nondeterminist (because we only say that because we've only seen white swans historically) (first and second sentences)
  • Author's view:
    • This swan division defines the history of evolutionary theory (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "history of struggle" (third sentence)

Main Point: There is a debate among scientists about whether biology can be explained by universal laws.

Describing a Debate: This passage utilizes a Describing a Debate Meta-Structure.* In such passages, the author describes two sides of a debate without taking a side or attempting to reconcile the two sides. (If the author takes a side or attempts to resolve the debate, the passage is better understood as a "Resolving a Debate" passage.)

In the passage, the author does just this: they describe one side of the debate that says evolutionary biology can be explained with rigid, universal laws. Then, they give voice to the other side, which claims that historical contingency plays a crucial role in the evolution of species. Since the author never endorses either of the two sides, the purpose of the passage (and its Meta-Structure) is best explained as a description of a debate.

In Describing a Debate Meta-Structures, the main point will be the author's description of both sides of the debate (or the assertion that there is a debate). Since the passage doesn't give us a succinct summary of the debate, we can make our own. The main point, then, will be something like, "There is a debate among scientists about whether biology can be explained by universal laws."

*You could call this a Reporting a Viewpoint passage. The author simply reports the views of philosophers and scientists without ever offering their own take on the subject matter. You could even call this is a Generalization/Example passage since the author uses the "swan" example to illustrate the difference between the determinist's and nondeterminist's views of universal laws.

Comparison: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is the comparison. Specifically, the author compares how the two sides of the debate on evolutionary biology would interpret the claim that "all swans are white." This statement has a whole paragraph dedicated to it, so we're definitely getting a question or two on it. (You could also have thought of this as an example minor Meta-Structure, since it's a specific statement that illustrates a more general point. Either way, we should note that this detail is important!)

Once we have identified the author has focused the passage on a debate, it's of critical importance that we determine if the author sides with one side or the other. It's absolutely worth taking a few moments to double-check that the author doesn't eventually side with one viewpoint. If they do, it will completely change our understanding of the passage's argument.

For example, if we had decided that the author did in fact advocate for the determinist view of evolutionary biology, the entire purpose of the passage changes. Whereas the purpose was previously to describe a debate, this subtle change would transform the purpose into resolving a debate or rebutting critics. That's why we have to make sure we have a solid, accurate understanding of what the author actually believes.