Reading comp PrepTest 115 · Section 1 · Question 27

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 approach to studying the mind outdated and Remaining source text redacted.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    • Some philosophers' views (having people describe their own state of mind is outdated)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      • The subjective approach to studying the mind is outdated, as scientists have been successful in using externally observable evidence to yield knowledge; philosophers should take the same approach to the mind (first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    • Examples of outdated self-descriptions in philosophy, according to some philosophers: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

Based on the passage, Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

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

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review notes on the objectivist approach to studying the mind, if necessary, to anticipate key features of that concept

Answer Anticipation

If the previous question secretly depended on our understanding of the subjectivists' approach, this question not-so-secretly depends on our understanding of the objectivists' approach. This question asks us to identify an example that illustrates the objectivist approach to studying the mind. To answer this, we simply have to use our notes or re-read the relevant part of the passage to review the objectivists' approach and find the answer choice that presents a new situation that exemplifies the key characteristics of what we reviewed. The correct answer choice will likely present new information, so we shouldn't eliminate anything that seems unfamiliar. We should only eliminate answer choices that do not include key elements of the objectivists' approach.So, a review of our notes or paragraph one should reveal a few key features of their approach: they won't include evidence that is "private" and "perceivable only to a particular individual," and they instead want evidence that is "externally observable and can be described without reference to any particular point of view" (P1, S3). We even get an example of such evidence, which we could have highlighted as a minor Meta-Structure: the study of how nerves transmit impulses to the brain (P1, S3). We should look for an answer choice that conforms to these details and, because their approach is in diametric opposition to that of the subjectivists, one that looks nothing like the subjectivists' approach.

Answer choices

  1. A
    collecting accounts of dreams Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice describe a situation where the evidence is observable and isn't private or subjective?

    Nope. Collecting "accounts of dreams" typifies the "traditional, subjective approach" (P1, S1) that the objectivists hope to end. Notice how this answer choice's approach requires the subject to describe their own perception of their dreams — the type of "private evidence perceivable only to a particular individual" that scientists and objectivists reject.

  2. B
    interviewing subjects during extremes Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice describe a situation where the evidence is observable and isn't private or subjective?

    No. "Interviewing subjects" is entirely consistent with the "traditional, subjective approach" (P1, S1) that the objectivists disavow. The approach this answer choice describes would require either the interviewee to relate their mood or the interviewer to discern the interviewee's mood. Either would involve a reference to a "particular point of view" (P1, S3) that the objectivists hope to eschew.

  3. C
    recording subjects' evaluation of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice describe a situation where the evidence is observable and isn't private or subjective?

    Negative. Recording the "subjects' evaluation of the stress they experienced" is completely in line with the subjectivists' approach that the objectivists believe is "outdated and ineffectual" (P1, S1). The approach this answer choice depicts requires the subject to describe their own stress levels, which is a type of "private evidence perceivable only to a particular individual" (P1, S3) that scientists and objectivists want to eliminate.

  4. D
    analyzing the amount of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Does this answer choice describe a situation where the evidence is observable and isn't private or subjective?

    Yes! This is the only answer choice that does not involve asking someone to relay their subjective experiences and, therefore, can be selected because it does not resemble the subjectivists' approach.

    However, it also bears features of the objectivists' approach, as outlined by the first paragraph. Primarily, "the amount of a certain chemical in subjects' bloodstreams" is certainly evidence that is "externally observable and can be described without reference to any particular point of view" (P1, S3). In this answer choice, there's only objective, measurable evidence, and no subjective accounts of how aggressive a person feels or seems, so it is the answer choice most aligned with the objectivists' approach.

  5. E
    asking subjects to speak Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice describe a situation where the evidence is observable and isn't private or subjective?

    No. This is another answer choice that exemplifies the "traditional, subjective approach" (P1, S1) that the objectivists want to move past. Like the rest of the incorrect answer choices, this answer choice's approach requires the subject to describe their own thoughts — the type of "private evidence perceivable only to a particular individual" (P1, S3) that scientists and objectivists reject.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 5%
  2. B 5%
  3. C 6%
  4. D Credited 77%
  5. E 7%

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