Reading comp PrepTest 115 · Section 1 · Question 24

Passage

Questions 21-28  .        Some of the philosophers find the traditional, subjective  . approach to studying the mind outdated and Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

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    • Some philosophers' views (having people describe their own state of mind is outdated)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      • The subjective approach to studying the mind is outdated, as scientists have been successful in using externally observable evidence to yield knowledge; philosophers should take the same approach to the mind (first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    • Examples of outdated self-descriptions in philosophy, according to some philosophers: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.

Meta-Structure?

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.

Last Thoughts?

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.

Question prompt

According to the passage, Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review notes, if necessary, or review the second paragraph in passage, and determine why the subjectivists believe objectivism is faulty

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to find a specific detail mentioned in the passage, quickly finding and reviewing that piece of information is paramount. That is why we make brief notes describing the role of each paragraph and highlight or underline definitions and the minor Meta-Structures — doing so helps us find the salient information efficiently and reliably. Once we review that part of the passage, we can look through the answer choices to see which one is best supported by what we reviewed.Here, the question asks about why the subjectivists believe objectivism is faulty. Where did the passage advance the subjectivists' beliefs? Our note for the second paragraph is, "Other philosophers' views (should include subjective experience)." That should point us to that part of the passage.Reviewing the second paragraph, we can see the subjectivists accuse objectivists of "reduc[ing] the sources of knowledge to only those data that can be discerned objectively" (P2, S3). A quick review of the preceding sentence would further reveal why the subjectivists find issue with this reduction: knowledge relies in part on the data of subjective experience, which objectivism attempts to shut out (P2, S2). The correct answer will likely be very similar to this critique.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Objectivism rests on evidence Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say the subjectivists believe objectivism is faulty because the objectivists attempt to reduce the sources of knowledge to only those that produce empirical data, even though knowledge relies in part on subjective experience?

    Not quite. This uses language that is very similar to the topic sentence of the second paragraph and may be very tempting to you (especially if you CTRL/Command + F'ed "subjectiv" to find the answer to this question and only read the first sentence). However, this answer choice subtly distorts the subjectivists' critique in that paragraph. As the topic sentence states, subjectivists aren't persuaded by the objectivists' appeals to use the scientific method when the appeals conflict with the data gathered through introspection (P2, S1). So, in a situation in which the subjective evidence and the objective evidence conflict, the objectivists would only consider the objective evidence, while subjectivists would not just accept the objective evidence — they would also consider (perhaps even prefer) the subjective evidence (notice how this sentence claims that subjectivists "are not persuaded by appeals to science" in these cases — it doesn't say they "reject appeals to science" in these cases).

    This doesn't mean that the subjectivists believe that the objectivist approach always rests on evidence that conflicts with the data of introspection, however. For example, if I were to drink an intoxicating beverage, you could look at a report of my neurological activity (objective evidence) and my self-report that I can't think very clearly (subjective evidence) and conclude from both that my brain was impaired by the beverage. The two sources of evidence would be consistent. The subjectivists take issue with the objectivists because the objectivists would not include my subjective reporting. This is problematic to the subjectivists because the subjectivists believe knowledge "includes subjective experience" (P2, S2).

  2. B
    Objectivism restricts the kinds Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) Does this say the subjectivists believe objectivism is faulty because the objectivists attempt to reduce the sources of knowledge to only those that produce empirical data, even though knowledge relies in part on subjective experience?

    Yep. We can confidently select (B) and advance to the following question.

    After all, this answer choice is supported by the rhetorical question that the author attributes to the subjectivists at the end of the second paragraph: the objectivists' approach "reduce[s] the sources of knowledge to only those data that can be discerned objectively" (P2, S3). This is concerning to the subjectivists because they believe knowledge "includes subjective experience" (P2, S2). In other words, the subjectivists believe that objectivism restricts the kinds of experience — subjective experience — from which philosophers draw knowledge, as (B) states.

  3. C
    Objectivism relies on data Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say the subjectivists believe objectivism is faulty because the objectivists attempt to reduce the sources of knowledge to only those that produce empirical data, even though knowledge relies in part on subjective experience?

    Nope. For that reason, we can eliminate (C).

    Besides, if you do not recall a discussion of interpreting scientific data in this passage, there's a reason for that. The subjectivists never claim that objectivists' data can only be interpreted by scientific specialists. In fact, the issue of being able to interpret data is never discussed in this passage at all.

    On a Must Be True question, if an answer choice brings up a topic that you do not recall reading about, you should not re-read the passage to see if you missed that topic. Most times, you will not recall that topic because that topic did not appear in the passage. It's a much better use of your limited time to defer or eliminate that answer choice and take a look at the rest.

  4. D
    Objectivism provides no context Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say the subjectivists believe objectivism is faulty because the objectivists attempt to reduce the sources of knowledge to only those that produce empirical data, even though knowledge relies in part on subjective experience?

    Nope. For that reason, we can eliminate (D).

    Besides, if you do not recall a discussion of the context in which one would view scientific data, there's a reason for that. The subjectivists never claim that objectivists' approach does not provide a context to view scientific data as relevant to philosophical questions. If anything, the first paragraph suggested certain contexts in which one could use scientific data in a philosophical discussion (e.g., in discussing how one feels pain or anger, P1, S2).

    On a Must Be True question, if an answer choice brings up a topic that you do not recall reading about, you should not re-read the passage to see if you missed that topic. Most times, you will not recall that topic because that topic did not appear in the passage. It's a much better use of your limited time to defer or eliminate that answer choice and take a look at the rest.

  5. E
    Objectivism concerns itself with Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say the subjectivists believe objectivism is faulty because the objectivists attempt to reduce the sources of knowledge to only those that produce empirical data, even though knowledge relies in part on subjective experience?

    Nope. For that reason, we can eliminate (E).

    Besides, this is inaccurate. The subjectivists never claim that objectivism concerns itself with questions that philosophy doesn't traditionally consider. In fact, the first paragraph gives us two philosophical topics — the sensation of pain and anger (liens 3-7) — that objectivists think scientific evidence can address.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 36%
  2. B Credited 48%
  3. C 5%
  4. D 6%
  5. E 5%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion