Reading comp PrepTest 115 · Section 1 · Question 22

Topic: Humanities

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Some philosophers' views (having people describe their own state of mind is outdated)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Some philosophers' views:
    • The subjective approach to studying the mind is outdated, as scientists have been successful in using externally observable evidence to yield knowledge; philosophers should take the same approach to the mind (first through last sentences)
  • Examples of outdated self-descriptions in philosophy, according to some philosophers:
    • Describing pain, anger, self-awareness (second sentence)
  • Example of hard data, according to some philosophers:
    • Nerve impulses (third sentence)
  • Examples of successful approaches in science, according to some philosophers:
    • Chemistry, biology, and physics (fourth sentence)
  • Comparison between science and traditional philosophy, according to some philosophers:
    • Science doesn't investigate private, subjective evidence, unlike philosophy (third sentence)_
  • Author's attitude: "remarkably successful" (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Other philosophers' views (should include subjective experience)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Other philosophers' views:
    • We shouldn't ignore introspection when it conflicts with hard data since knowledge relies on experience, which includes subjective experience as well (first through last sentences)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author's view (the lack of communication or common assumptions between sides concerning)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • It seems unlikely that the two sides could be reconciled and the lack of shared assumptions between the two sides is particularly disturbing, as it precludes reasoned debate (first though last sentences)
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Philosophy doesn't progress to a single truth, unlike science (second sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "seems unlikely" (first sentence), "bound to continue" (second sentence), "particularly distressing" (third sentence), "virtually impossible" (third sentence), "there must be shared assumptions or beliefs" (fourth sentence), "lack a common context" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author's support (analogy to creation beliefs)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Analogy drawn to religion/creation beliefs (first through last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "may be" (first sentence), "there is little hope" (first sentence), "Only further investigation ... would be sufficient" (last sentence)

Paragraph 5

• Paragraph note
  • Author's conclusion (beed to investigate the authority of each approach, maybe turn to epistemology
• Important details
  • Author's main point:
    • "What would be required to resolve the debate between the philosophers of mind, then, is an investigation into the authority of their differing perspectives" (first sentence)
  • Definition of "epistemology": study of knowledge (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "would be required" (first sentence), "may itself lead to the discovery of new forms of knowledge" (last sentence)

Main Point: It may seem unlikely that the approaches to studying the mind advocated by the objectivists and subjectivists can be reconciled, but an inquiry into the authority of their differing approaches may lead to an eventual resolution.

Resolving a Debate: The structuring principle of this passage is Resolving a Debate. Passages that utilize this Meta-Structure typically use the early paragraphs to outline a debate between two diametrically opposed views. In paragraph one of this passage, we learn about a group of philosophers whom the author will later refer to as "objectivists." Then, in paragraph two, we learn about another opposed group of philosophers, whom the author will refer to as "subjectivists" later in the passage. This framing is typical.

What is less typical is that the author never actually resolves the debate. This author simply complains about the debate (paragraph three), compares it to the beliefs of different religions (paragraph four), and then suggests a set of questions that may be useful in later resolving the debate (paragraph five). So, although the main points of passages with the Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure usually discuss the resolution the author provides, we'll have to take a different approach here. Instead, the main point will be about the lack of resolution and the questions the author believes may lead to an eventual resolution.

With this many viewpoints, we can expect at least a couple of questions about objectivists', subjectivists', and the author's viewpoints.

Further, we tend to get a lot of questions about the author's attitude on Resolve a Debate Meta-Structures. So, what is this author's attitude? Is the author hopeful that the objectivists' and subjectivists' approaches can be reconciled? A clue can be found in how the third and fifth paragraphs relate to one another. Notice how the author starts the third paragraph starts with, "On the face of it, it seems unlikely that these two approaches to studying the mind could be reconciled" (P3, S1). Authors generally use phrases like "on the face of it," "at first glance," "while it may seem," and others to present an idea they don't fully agree with. If an author who uses such a phrase later contrasts that idea, we can generally infer that the author disagrees with the initial sentiment. And that's exactly what the author does in the fifth paragraph of this passage: suggest ways that the two approaches to studying the mind could be reconciled. For that reason, we can infer that the author is at least slightly hopeful that we can reconcile the objectivists' and subjectivists' approaches.