Reading comp PrepTest 115 · Section 1 · Question 25

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 approach to studying the mind outdated and Remaining source text redacted.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    • Some philosophers' views (having people describe their own state of mind is outdated)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      • The subjective approach to studying the mind is outdated, as scientists have been successful in using externally observable evidence to yield knowledge; philosophers should take the same approach to the mind (first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    • Examples of outdated self-descriptions in philosophy, according to some philosophers: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

The author discusses the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review reference to the work of scientists in the first paragraph, consult notes, and choose answer choice based on your understanding of how that reference serves the role of the first paragraph in the passage's overall argument

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us why the author inserted the discussion of scientists' work into the first paragraph. Unless a detail conflicts with the paragraph's purpose, the author probably mentioned that detail to advance the paragraph's role. So, reviewing the first paragraph's role, which we hopefully wrote down in the notes on our scratch paper, will generally reveal why the author included that detail.Our note for the first paragraph is, "Some philosophers' views (having people describe their own state of mind is outdated)." That clarifies that the purpose of that paragraph was to outline the objectivists' approach to studying the human mind. Their approach ignores subjective reports and instead utilizes scientific data when studying the mind. Even if you didn't capture that role in your notes, a quick review of the topic sentence should provide clarification on the purpose of the paragraph. The topic sentence announces that the paragraph will discuss how the objectivists find the "traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind outdated and ineffectual" (P1, S1).So what role does the discussion of scientists' work play? The discussion of scientists — which outlines how scientists routinely ignore any subjective data that rely on "any particular point of view" (P1, S3) — is perfectly consistent with the paragraph's role. The objectivists want to emulate these scientists, after all. So, the discussion of the scientists is there to provide a contrast to the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind, and to advance the objectivists' contention that only scientific data should be considered in the study of the human mind. We should look for an answer choice that is consistent with this anticipation.

Answer choices

  1. A
    contrast the traditional approach Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this say the discussion of the scientists contrasts the objectivists' work to the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind?

    Bingo. This answer choice perfectly captures our anticipated role — the sentence about the scientists is there to contrast the "traditional approach of studying the mind" and advance the "approach advocated by the objectivists." We can select (A) and advance straight to the next question.

  2. B
    argue that the attempt Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say the discussion of the scientists contrasts the objectivists' work to the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind?

    No. For this reason, we can elimiante (B).

    Still, the author discusses pain in the sentence immediately preceding the sentence about scientists, so this may be a tempting answer choice — especially because it includes a quote from the line about the scientists ("without reference to any particular point of view"). There are two major issues — one structural, and one authorial — with this answer choice, however.

    Structurally, the discussion of pain and the discussion of scientists both serve the first paragraph's purpose independently. The author does not bring up scientists to make any conclusions about pain. Instead, pain is brought up to provide an example of a topic that the objectivists would like to apply more scientific rigor to than the "traditional, subjective approach" provides. The discussion of the scientists is there to show how scientists have successfully used observable, objective data when researching in other fields. Both references serve the paragraph's overall role — to outline the objectivists' commitment to relying on observable, objective data — but neither reference supports the other in the paragraph's argument.

    Moreover, and more immediately to the point, the phrasing of this answer choice suggests that the author brought up scientists to argue that the objectivists are correct — that descriptions of pain shouldn't rely on subjective evidence. But remember the author's main point: we don't know which approach is preferable or how the debate between the approaches can be resolved until we examine the authority of each position (P5, S1). The author does not take sides in this debate, so we need to eliminate any answer choice that attempts to take sides.

  3. C
    explain why scientists should Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say the discussion of the scientists contrasts the objectivists' work to the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind?

    No. Like (B), this answer choice suggests that the author took the objectivists' position, when a quick review of the author's main point will reveal that the author took no sides (P5, S1). Since this answer choice mischaracterizes the author's main position in the passage, it misdescribes the author's purpose in bringing up the line in question.

    Moreover, this answer misconstrues the objectivists' view. They weren't arguing that scientists shouldn't concern themselves with describing a phenomenon with subjective evidence. They were arguing that philosophers studying the human mind shouldn't concern themselves with describing a phenomenon with subjective evidence.

  4. D
    criticize subjectivists for thinking Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say the discussion of the scientists contrasts the objectivists' work to the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind?

    Nope. Again, this answer choice suggests that the author took the objectivists' side and wants to "criticize the subjectivists," when a review of the main point will reveal that the author doesn't want to criticize either side until a further examination into both positions has been made (P5, S1). This answer choice also has structural issues (the subjectivists' position has not been advanced at this point in the passage) and misstates the subjectivists' position (they don't think there's "little to be gained from studying the mind scientifically" — they just don't want to shut out subjective evidence entirely (P2, S2-S3)).

  5. E
    clarify why the objectivists' Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say the discussion of the scientists contrasts the objectivists' work to the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind?

    Not quite.This answer choice is very tempting, but it misstates what the "objectivists' position" is. When a neuroscientist uses hard data to study "how nerves transmit impulses to the brain" (P1, S3), they are not necessarily utilizing the "objectivists' position" as it is described in this passage. They're using the scientific method. The objectivists' position is to take that scientific method — specifically the use of hard data and rejection of subjective accounts — and apply it to "studying the mind" (P1, S1). Since this answer choice subtly but significantly distorts the objectivists' position, it does not accurately convey why the author inserted the sentence about scientists into the first paragraph.

    Plus, nothing in this line or the rest of the first paragraph actually describes why this approach is successful; the author just says, without explanation, that it is successful in chemistry, biology, and physics (P1, S4).

    Finally, in claiming that the author's purpose was to explain why the objectivists' approach is "successful," this answer choice suggests that the author takes the objectivists' side in the debate in this paragraph, which is not the case at all.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A Credited 64%
  2. B 5%
  3. C 8%
  4. D 4%
  5. E 19%

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