Reading comp PrepTest 129 · Section 4 · Question 10

Topic: Social Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Author's view on science and humanities (should attempt to combine; division based on misunderstandings)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • We should try to correct the misunderstands that prevent the much-needed combination of science and the humanities (first sentence)
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
    • Misunderstandings cause the separation of science and the humanities (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "An effort should be made to dispel the misunderstandings that still prevent the much-needed synthesis and mutual supplementation" (first sentence); "should not be too difficult" (last sentence); "primarily the result of a basic misunderstanding" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Humanists' misunderstanding of science (only concerned with laws, can't explain values or some spiritual parts of the mind)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Humanists's view:
    • Science reduces things to mechanical laws and ignores things like morality, religion, and the arts that have a spiritual element (first, second, fourth, and last sentences)
  • Author's view:
    • Humanists are ignorant of modern science and thus have reductive and absurd views about it (third sentence)
  • Examples of things science ignores, according to humanists:
    • Human values and the parts of the mind that deal with morality, religion, the arts, and spirituality (fourth and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "absurd mechanistic reductionism" (first sentence); "caricature of science" (third sentence); "ignorant" (third sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Scientists misunderstanding humanities (only interested in emotion and sentimental; not functional; secondary)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Scientists' view:
    • Humanists care only about emotion and sentiment, and the humanities are useless because they don't help humans survive (first and second sentences)
    • Morality/religion/arts should only have secondary importance (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "pragmatists" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author's reconciliation with "scientific humanism" (focus on similarities and combine elements)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • Correcting the misconceptions humanists and scientists hold and focusing on the similarities between the two approaches will result in a more acceptable position called "scientific humanism" (first and second sentences)
    • If we continue to focus on their different approaches, we probably won't get the benefits of scientific humanism; but if we focus on their similar objectives, we probably will get the benefits (seventh and last sentences)
  • Comparisons, according to the author:
    • A similarity between science and the humanities is that both attempt to explain people and the world (fourth sentence)
    • A difference between science and the humanities is that they start from different places (fourth sentence)
    • Science takes some elements from humanities since it isn't limited to data (fifth sentence)
    • The humanities take some elements from science since they have benefited from controlled experiments (fifth sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "misconceptions among humanists and scientists alike" (first sentence); "in need of correction" (first sentence); "much more acceptable position" (second sentence); "true" (fourth sentence); "objectives remain the same" (fourth sentence); "in fact does not depend exclusively" (fifth sentence); "in fact profit from" (fifth sentence); "uninformed" (seventh sentence); "fruitful collaboration of both fields is unlikely" (seventh sentence); "possible, even probable, if we begin by noting their common objectives" (last sentence)

Main Point: By focusing on shared goals instead of misunderstandings of each others' disciplines, we can benefit from a combination of science and the humanities called "scientific humanism."

Correcting the Record: This passage is perhaps best understood as a Correcting the Record passage.* In a Correcting the Record passage, the author will describe at least one common misconception or false belief. The author will then explain why the beliefs are false and occasionally offer an alternative belief. That fits this passage perfectly. The author dedicates the second and third paragraphs to misconceptions held by humanists and scientists about each other's disciplines. The author then corrects those misconceptions in the fourth paragraph, combining their two approaches into a better position called "scientific humanism" (a truly inspired name).

In a Correcting the Record passage, the main point is often the author's explanation of why the misconception is false (or just an assertion that the misconceptions are false). Alternatively, if the author provides an alternative belief or approach, the main point is the author's opinion about that belief or approach. The latter description applies to this passage. To articulate the main point, we can look for whether the author summarizes their opinion about the new approach — scientific humanism. Fortunately for us, the author does so at the end of the first and fourth paragraphs. We can use either to help us understand and articulate the passage's main point.

*That said, there are several other ways we could classify the passage. If we take "misunderstandings" to be the old approach and "scientific humanism" to be the new approach, the Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure would work for this passage. If we think of the mistaken humanists and scientists as critics, we could think of this as a Rebutting Critics passage. And if we interpret the humanists' and scientists' misunderstandings as a debate between the two fields, we could call this a Resolving a Debate passage. Any one of these could help us understand the passage's organization and main point.

Comparison: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is the comparison. The author compares science and the humanities in the fourth paragraph, highlighting their differences and similarities (P4, S3-S5). These similarities and differences might show up in a question or two, so having them highlighted or underlined will help us answer those efficiently.

This passage has a very helpful first paragraph. It provides the author's main point and previews the passage's entire structure. When the first paragraph features as many tonal phrases as this one, there's a good chance it provides an overview of the argument the author will make throughout the passage. When we can identify these paragraphs, we can read predictively — that is, we can anticipate where the passage is going as we read it. This is the highest level of reading on the LSAT, and it's often necessary to finish all four passages while answering the questions correctly.