PrepTest 111

[lcid:3541] Prep Test 111 LSAT — Reading Comp — S2 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 15-20  .        Philosophers of science have long been uneasy  . with biology, preferring instead to focus on physics. Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Philosophers of science prefer physics to biology (because physics is certain and predictable)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Philosophers of science's views:
      • They prefer to study things that are always true, so they prefer physics to biology (first and second sentences)
    • Comparisons, according to the author:
      • Science studies things that are always true, repeatable, and universal; it doesn't study things that are only sometimes true (second sentence)
      • Philosophers of science are more interested in the rate at which a mouse and an elephant fall than their evolutionary history (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "uneasy" (first sentence), "mistrust" (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Evolutionary biologists' views (evolution governed by universal laws) and other biologists' views (randomness might be part of biology)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • Like the philosophers of science, evolutionary biologists have a distaste for randomness and have tried to construct their science based on universal laws (first through third sentences)
    • Example of the kinds of universal laws they make, c to the author:
      • The "struggle for existence" (third sentence)
    • Other biologists' view
      • Historical contingency is an important part of biology (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "intellectual disdain" (first sentence), "tried to emulate" (first sentence), "have questioned" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • An illustration of this debate is introduced (planets statement used to illustrate "universal laws")
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison between two statements that philosophers make, according to the author:
      • "All planets move in ellipses" is universal since it must apply to all planets, whether we know about them or not (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "the difference between" (first sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • The illustration is expanded and explained (swan statement illustrates the difference between determinists and nondeterminists)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison between two statements that philosophers make, according to the author (continued from the previous paragraph):
      • "All swans are white" would be universal for a biological determinist (since it would be determined by evolutionary laws), but it would not be universal for a nondeterminist (because we only say that because we've only seen white swans historically) (first and second sentences)
    • Author's view:
      • This swan division defines the history of evolutionary theory (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "history of struggle" (third sentence)

Main Point: There is a debate among scientists about whether biology can be explained by universal laws.

Meta-Structure?

Describing a Debate: This passage utilizes a Describing a Debate Meta-Structure.* In such passages, the author describes two sides of a debate without taking a side or attempting to reconcile the two sides. (If the author takes a side or attempts to resolve the debate, the passage is better understood as a "Resolving a Debate" passage.)

In the passage, the author does just this: they describe one side of the debate that says evolutionary biology can be explained with rigid, universal laws. Then, they give voice to the other side, which claims that historical contingency plays a crucial role in the evolution of species. Since the author never endorses either of the two sides, the purpose of the passage (and its Meta-Structure) is best explained as a description of a debate.

In Describing a Debate Meta-Structures, the main point will be the author's description of both sides of the debate (or the assertion that there is a debate). Since the passage doesn't give us a succinct summary of the debate, we can make our own. The main point, then, will be something like, "There is a debate among scientists about whether biology can be explained by universal laws."

*You could call this a Reporting a Viewpoint passage. The author simply reports the views of philosophers and scientists without ever offering their own take on the subject matter. You could even call this is a Generalization/Example passage since the author uses the "swan" example to illustrate the difference between the determinist's and nondeterminist's views of universal laws.

Comparison: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is the comparison. Specifically, the author compares how the two sides of the debate on evolutionary biology would interpret the claim that "all swans are white." This statement has a whole paragraph dedicated to it, so we're definitely getting a question or two on it. (You could also have thought of this as an example minor Meta-Structure, since it's a specific statement that illustrates a more general point. Either way, we should note that this detail is important!)

Last Thoughts?

Once we have identified the author has focused the passage on a debate, it's of critical importance that we determine if the author sides with one side or the other. It's absolutely worth taking a few moments to double-check that the author doesn't eventually side with one viewpoint. If they do, it will completely change our understanding of the passage's argument.

For example, if we had decided that the author did in fact advocate for the determinist view of evolutionary biology, the entire purpose of the passage changes. Whereas the purpose was previously to describe a debate, this subtle change would transform the purpose into resolving a debate or rebutting critics. That's why we have to make sure we have a solid, accurate understanding of what the author actually believes.

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

Science

Strategy Overview

Review your notes to recall the determinists' views, then find an answer that must be true according to the passage

Answer Anticipation

This question stem asks us to identify something that must be true according to the beliefs of the determinists. Often, one's views are described at length throughout the passage, so reviewing the passage or anticipating what the correct answer will say is not a wise investment of our limited time. Instead, we can remind ourselves of what we noted about their views and go on to the answer choices. We'll eliminate each one we know is wrong (for instance, if we know it contradicts their views) and table any choice that includes a detail we don't remember reading. If we see a detail we recall, even vaguely, we can review the passage to see if we can find the supporting text.So, let's use the notes to recap the determinists' views. According to the second paragraph note, they think that evolutionary biology is "governed by universal laws." Moreover, let's take stock of the nondeterminists' views, as incorrect answer choices might reflect their beliefs. The nondeterminists, according to the second paragraph note, think that "randomness might be part of biology." Let's avoid anything that sounds closer to the nondeterminists' view while we look for an answer choice that is consistent with the determinists' view.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The appearance of a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this consistent with the determinists' view?

    Nope. The determinists believe that everything can be explained by universal laws — they don't think that historical chance is involved. As predicted, this wrong answer choice reflects the nondeterminists' view. (A) is out.

  2. B
    The rate at which Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this consistent with the determinists' view?

    No. Change that "fluctuates" doesn't sound like a "universal law." It sounds closer to the randomness that the nondeterminists posit. For this reason, we can cross off (B) without reviewing the passage.

    If we had to review the passage to eliminate (B), we'd see that the determinists believe that "virtually all DNA evolves at a constant clocklike rate" (P2, S3). (B) contradicts this claim, so we can eliminate it.

  3. C
    The causes of a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this consistent with the determinists' view?

    Not really. The determinists put faith in "universal laws," which sounds like it would make any phenomenon understandable. Again, if phenomena were governed by randomness, they would be unknowable. So, this answer choice sounds closer to the nondeterminists' views. Plus, this answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that's hard to support ("can never") and thus unlikely to appear in the correct answer of a Must Be True question. Therefore, we can eliminate (C) without checking the passage.

    If we had to check the passage to eliminate (C), we wouldn't find any support for this claim. The author never says or implies that the determinists don't think the causes of a phenomenon can be understood by scientists.

  4. D
    The qualities that define Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Is this consistent with the determinists' view?

    We can't say. (D) just says that defining physical attributes is caused by a "process," but it doesn't say whether that process is created by universal law or by historical contingency. Without that information, we can't say whether this belief is in accord with the determinists' views. So, we can eliminate (D) without checking the passage.

    If we had to check the passage to eliminate (D), we wouldn't find any evidence that the determinists believe this. The author never says or implies that the determinists haven't identified the process by which species develop. It seems like they agree that the process is "evolution," in fact.

  5. E
    The chief physical characteristics Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Is this consistent with the determinists' view?

    Yes! The "inevitable consequences of the laws governing natural selection" sure sounds like a "universal law"! For this reason, we can probably select (E) safely without even reviewing the passage.

    But if you need to review the passage before feeling comfortable selecting (E), you'll find support in the fourth paragraph. In the example of the swan, the passage tells us that the determinists think swans are white because "the laws of natural selection make it impossible for swans to be otherwise" (P4, S1). That directly supports (E), so it's definitely our answer.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion