Reading comp PrepTest 115 · Section 1 · Question 28

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 approach to studying the mind outdated and Remaining source text redacted.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    • Some philosophers' views (having people describe their own state of mind is outdated)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      • The subjective approach to studying the mind is outdated, as scientists have been successful in using externally observable evidence to yield knowledge; philosophers should take the same approach to the mind (first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    • Examples of outdated self-descriptions in philosophy, according to some philosophers: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

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

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

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review your notes and the debate described in the fourth paragraph, if necessary, and note key characteristics of the debate

Answer Anticipation

This question, interestingly, asks us to parallel a debate that was already parallel to the central debate of the passage. We're essentially photocopying a photocopy.Your notes — or a quick review of that fourth paragraph, if necessary — should remind you that the debate described in that paragraph was one between "adherents of different religions about the creation of the universe" (P4, S1). As the author points out, each side is "confident" that their beliefs are firmly rooted in their texts, so pointing to what each text says will do little to resolve the debate (P4, S2).After reviewing this, we can better understand what key features we should look for in an answer choice: a debate between two sides who use different resources to support their view, who both believe that they're right and have all the support they need. And, of course, the debate described in the fourth paragraph parallels the debate between objectivists and subjectivists, so we can use our understanding of that debate to inform our answer choice selection, too.

Answer choices

  1. A
    a debate among investigators Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice describe a debate between two sides who use different resources to support their views, who both believe that they're right and have all the support they need?

    Not quite. There is a debate described by this answer choice, and the "conflicting physical evidence" at least partially resembles the different texts referenced in the fourth paragraph. But it's not clear whether the investigators are arguing for opposing conclusions. It's also not clear whether they are resolute in their commitment to their conclusions. Without knowing that these investigators have different conclusions or that they both believe that they're right and that they have all the support they need in their different sources of evidence, we can't say that these investigators are analogous to the adherents in paragraph four.

  2. B
    a debate among jurors Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice describe a debate between two sides who use different resources to support their views, who both believe that they're right and have all the support they need?

    Not exactly. There is a debate described by this answer choice, and the "two eyewitness accounts" at least partially resemble the different texts referenced in the fourth paragraph. But it's not clear whether the jurors have already taken opposing positions (such as whether the defendant is innocent or guilty). It's also not clear whether they are resolute in their commitment to their positions. Without knowing that these jurors have different conclusions or that they both believe that they're right and that they have all the support they need, we can't say that these jurors parallel the adherents in paragraph four.

  3. C
    a debate between two Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice describe a debate between two sides who use different resources to support their views, who both believe that they're right and have all the support they need?

    Not quite. Although this describes a debate, it lacks both the firm positions taken and the different evidence used that were central to the debate described in paragraph four. Unlike the adherents described in that paragraph, it's unclear whether these archaeologists have drawn divergent conclusions. And unlike the sacred texts the adherents in the fourth paragraph point to, these archaeologists don't have any evidence to point to. Therefore, (C) does not parallel the debate in the fourth paragraph.

  4. D
    a debate between two Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice describe a debate between two sides who use different resources to support their views, who both believe that they're right and have all the support they need?

    Not quite. There is a debate described by this answer choice, but it is disanalogous from the debate in the fourth paragraph in at least two important ways. First, it's not clear that the curators have drawn opposing takes on the value of the painting. They may be in debate, but they may be both uncertain about the value of the painting. Second, the two sides do not use different evidence to support their views. It's not as if the appraisals that each curator relies on are different. Without knowing that these curators have opposing conclusions or that they are using different evidence, we can't say that these curators parallel the adherents in paragraph four.

  5. E
    a debate between two Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Does this answer choice describe a debate between two sides who use different resources to support their views, who both believe that they're right and have all the support they need?

    Yes. Importantly, the historians in this answer choice "draw conflicting conclusions" about the same event. Unlike the incorrect answer choices, this answer choice describes two people who have drawn firm conclusions. They're not merely debating something without having drawn any conclusions. In this way, (E) is the only answer choice that parallels the adherents with different beliefs about the creation of the universe. Like the adherents and the creations of the universe, these historians have strongly held but opposing beliefs. And, like the adherents pointing to different texts to support their beliefs, these historians point to "different types of historical data" to support their respective cases. (Like both the adherents to religion and these historians, the subjectivists and objectivists also use different types of evidence to support their strongly held beliefs.) So, (E) is the only answer choice of the lot to describe a debate between two "adherents" with different support and is, therefore, the only answer choice to succinctly parallel the debate in the fourth paragraph.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 6%
  2. B 11%
  3. C 19%
  4. D 7%
  5. E Credited 57%

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