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

It can be inferred Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Refer to notes or what you highlighted/underline to locate where the passage discusses the philosopher of science and refer to the relevant part of the passage as needed to find that answer choice that must be true

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to infer, from a few details in the passage, an answer choice that must be true, quickly finding and reviewing those details is critical. That is why we make brief notes describing the role of each paragraph and highlight or underline definitions and the minor Meta-Structures — doing so helps us find the salient information efficiently and reliably. Once we review that part of the passage, we can look through the answer choices to see which one is best supported by what we reviewed.So, what do we know about the philosophers of science? The passage tells us in the first paragraph that they generally prefer physics because the laws of physics reduce uncertainty (P1, S1-S2). They also believe science is governed by "universal laws" and that anything that is inconsistent or not repeatable is "history" (P1, S2-S3). We're also told that they're "fascinated with the fact that elephants and mice would fall at the same rate if dropped from the Tower of Pisa, but not much interested in how elephants and mice got to be such different sizes in the first place" (P1, S4). Let's see if we can use that information to pick an answer choice.

Answer choices

  1. A
    analogous to the laws Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Based on the information we reviewed, can we infer that the philosophers of science see the laws of physics in this way?

    Nope. History is different from physics because the former is mutable and the latter is characterized by laws that are always true. They don't think the two are analogous, so (A) is out.

  2. B
    difficult to apply because Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Based on the information we reviewed, can we infer that the philosophers of science see the laws of physics in this way?

    Nope. The laws of physics are very certain, according to the philosophers of science. They argue that these laws aren't affected by changes in time or location (P1, S2-S3). So, we can cross off (B).

  3. C
    applicable to possible as Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) Based on the information we reviewed, can we infer that the philosophers of science see the laws of physics in this way?

    Yes! Based on what we reviewed, we can infer that the philosophers of science think the laws of physics are applicable to "possible" and "actual" situations. After all, they think these laws are universal — true everywhere and at all times. Plus, we're told they'd be interested in how elephants and mice would fall from the Tower of Pisa at the same rate. That definitely sounds like a made-up situation. For these reasons, we can safely select (C) without reviewing the passage.

    But if you wanted to double-check the passage, you could find more support in the third paragraph. That paragraph says the law of physics that dictates "all planets move in ellipses" is "truly universal because it applies not only to those planets that actually do exist, but also to those that could exist" (P3, S2). This directly supports (C), so it's our answer!

  4. D
    interesting because of their Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Based on the information we reviewed, can we infer that the philosophers of science see the laws of physics in this way?

    Nope. The philosophers like the laws of physics because they aren't particular — they are universal! (D) is out.

  5. E
    illustrative of the problem Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Based on the information we reviewed, can we infer that the philosophers of science see the laws of physics in this way?

    Nope. The laws of physics don't illustrate anything about historical contingency. In fact, these laws avoid historical contingency altogether. Let's eliminate (E.

What this tests

Discussion

  • (D) 3 replies

    Started by Julie-V

  • Explain 7 replies

    Started by TheFacu

View all discussions Start a discussion