PrepTest 156

[lcid:3722] Prep Test 156 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3 Reading comp

Passage

Passage A is adapted from a book review by physicist Freeman Dyson. Passage B is adapted from a response to Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Passage A

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Reductionist (science can explain everything) and traditional (science is only one source of knowledge) extremes and Dyson's position (near traditional)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author’s attitude
    • List of two extremes concerning the role of science in human understanding, according to Dyson:
      • Reductionist: all knowledge can be explained by science (second sentence)
      • Traditional: science is only one source of knowledge (third sentence)
    • Comparison, according to the Dyson:
      • While skeptics of paranormal phenomena are near the reductionist extreme, Dyson is near the traditional extreme (last sentence)
    • Dyson's attitude: "extreme" (first sentence); "reductionist" (second sentence); "I am near the traditional extreme" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Dyson on the connection between science's limits and paranormal phenomena's existence (science hasn't proven existence, but it can plausibly exist beyond scientific investigation)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author’s attitude
    • Dyson's view:
      • Even though science hasn't been able to study extrasensory perception and telepathy — and reductionists have concluded that they do not exist — these paranormal phenomena may exist beyond the scope of scientific investigation (first through last sentences)
    • Dyson's attitude: "closely connected" (first sentence); "failed" (second sentence); "I do not accept this conclusion" (fourth sentence); "may exist" (fifth sentence); "just a hypothesis, but one that I find tenable and plausible" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Dyson on evidence of paranormal phenomena (abundant, anecdotal, show phenomena may be observable only under stress)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author’s attitude
    • Dyson's view:
      • There is abundant anecdotal but carefully documented evidence of people who possess paranormal abilities that suggests that paranormal phenomena are only observable under stress and strong emotion (first through fourth sentence)
    • Comparison, according to Dyson:
      • The evidence that people possess paranormal abilities is anecdotal, unlike scientific evidence that can be repeated under controlled environments — the possibility that phenomena are only observable under stress/emotion make evidence impossible to reproduce in a scientific setting (second, fifth, and last sentences)
    • Dyson's attitude: "abundant evidence" (first sentence); "carefully documented" (third sentence); "make it clear" (fourth sentence); "occur only when people are under stress and experiencing strong emotion" (fourth sentence); "This would explain" (fifth sentence); "incompatible" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Dyson on possibly "complementary" nature of science and paranormal phenomena (both valid but can't be observed simultaneously, like light's waves/particles)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author’s attitude
    • Definition of "complementary":
      • Two descriptions of nature that are both true but cannot be observed at the same time (second sentence)
    • Example of "complementary" phenomena, according to Dyson:
      • Light, which behaves as a wave in some experiments and particles in others, but never both at the same time (last sentence)
    • Dyson's view:
      • Paranormal phenomena and scientific method may be complementary (first sentence)
    • Dyson's attitude: "may be complementary" (first sentence); "cannot see both" (last sentence)

Passage B

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's criticism of Dyson (anecdotal evidence doesn't rebut repeated scientific results that paranormal phenomena do not exist; "complementarity" principle doesn't apply)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author’s attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Dyson's view is ridiculous, and he should know better than to trust anecdotal evidence over clear, repeated scientific results that show that paranormal phenomena do not exist (first through fourth sentences)
      • The principle of the "complementarity" doesn't apply to paranormal phenomena since they either exist or don't exist (and science has only shown they don't exist) (fifth through last sentences)
    • Points of intersection with passage A:
      • References all aspects of Dyson's argument, including his reductionist/traditional dichotomy, his anecdotal evidence, his hypothesis that stress is required to observe the paranormal, and the hypothesis that the paranormal and science are "complementary"
    • Author's attitude: "ridiculous plea" (first sentence); "mysteriously disappear" (first sentence); "A scientist of Dyson’s caliber should know that anecdotes do not make a science" (second sentence); "The only way" (third sentence); "rigorous scientific experiments" (fourth sentence); "results are unequivocal" (fourth sentence); "chimera" (fourth sentence); "does not apply" (sixth sentence); "demonstrated that they cannot" (seventh sentence); "does not change this scientific fact" (last sentence)

Main Points?

Passage A: Because he identifies closer to the "traditional" view concerning science's relationship to human understanding, Dyson does not believe the lack of scientific proof of paranormal phenomena is dispositive, as paranormal phenomena may exist beyond scientific investigation or be complementary with scientific inquiry.

Passage B: Dyson's argument is ridiculous, and he should know better than to rely on anecdotal evidence over clear, repeated scientific results that show that paranormal phenomena do not exist.

Meta-Structure? Overall Relationship?

Relationship - Opposing Viewpoints: This is as unambiguous an example of an Opposing Viewpoint set of passages as you'll ever see. The author of passage B explicitly addresses Dyson's argument from passage A and disagrees with pretty much every point that Dyson makes. Dyson argues that the anecdotal evidence of paranormal phenomena is compelling and might be beyond science's ability to observe (PA, P3, S1-S6). The author of passage B argues that this anecdotal evidence should hold no weight against scientific evidence (PB, P1, S2-S4). Dyson argues that science and the paranormal may be "complementary" (PA, P4, S1), but the author of passage B responds that the notion of "complementarity" doesn't apply to the paranormal (PB, P1, S5-S6). Dyson (somewhat diplomatically) attributes his willingness to believe in the paranormal as a product of his ideological association with the "traditional" view of science and knowledge (PA, P1, S3-S5). The author of passage B argues that this ideology doesn't change the scientific fact that there's no scientific proof of the paranormal (PB, P1, S9).

Last Thoughts?

Since these passages are explicitly in conversation with one another, expect many questions that ask us what Dyson might think of a statement in passage B or what the author of passage B might think about one of Dyson's statements.

Question prompt

Both passages are concerned Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

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

Strategy Overview

Review the main point of both passages, looking for a way to frame the main point as a question that both passages answer

Answer Anticipation

This is the first question on almost all comparative passages. We can think of this as a Main Point question, in which the main point is framed as a question that both passages are meant to answer. To answer this, we can think of the main point of both passages, find the common ground between the two main points, and then frame that common ground as a question. As we anticipated, the main point of passage A is "Because he identifies closer to the "traditional" view concerning science's relationship to human understanding, Dyson does not believe the lack of scientific proof of paranormal phenomena is dispositive, as paranormal phenomena may exist beyond scientific investigation or be complementary with scientific inquiry." The main point of passage B is "Dyson's argument is ridiculous, and he should know better than to rely on anecdotal evidence over clear, repeated scientific results that show that paranormal phenomena do not exist." So, both passages address whether paranormal phenomena exist (passage A: maybe!; passage B: no). If we frame this issue a bit more generally, both passages address whether non-scientific evidence should hold weight against scientific evidence (passage A: yeah; passage B: no). So, the correct answer will probably present a question related to one of those issues.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Does experiencing apparent paranormal Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    Does this say that both passages address whether paranormal phenomena exist or whether non-scientific evidence should hold weight against scientific evidence?

    Nope, so let's cross (A) off. In fact, neither passage addresses whether experiencing paranormal phenomena leads to stress. Both passages, however, discuss whether stress is necessary to observe paranormal phenomena.

  2. B
    Is it possible that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    Does this say that both passages address whether paranormal phenomena exist or whether non-scientific evidence should hold weight against scientific evidence?

    Yes! The central point of both passages is whether paranormal phenomena exist. In passage A, Dyson argues that paranormal phenomena might exist, even if we can't observe them using scientific methods. In passage B, the author argues that science's failure to observe paranormal phenomena proves these phenomena do not exist.

    Since this answer choice matches our anticipation, we can select it and advance straight to the following question.

  3. C
    Do anecdotes have any Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    Does this say that both passages address whether paranormal phenomena exist or whether non-scientific evidence should hold weight against scientific evidence?

    Not quite, although this is a little bit tempting. Both passages address anecdotal evidence, and the author of passage B definitely thinks that anecdotes have no place in scientific inquiry (PB, P1, S2). However, passage A isn't concerned with whether anecdotes have a place in scientific inquiry. In passage A, Dyson treats scientific inquiry and anecdotal evidence as distinct things — notice how he claims that evidence of paranormal phenomena is "anecdotal rather than scientific" (PA, P3, S2). So, Dyson isn't trying to smuggle anecdotes into scientific inquiry. Instead, Dyson asks whether anecdotal evidence can prove something despite the lack of true scientific evidence.

  4. D
    Is the principle of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    Does this say that both passages address whether paranormal phenomena exist or whether non-scientific evidence should hold weight against scientific evidence?

    Nope, so we can eliminate (D). While Dyson seems perfectly OK with using the principle of "complementarity" outside of quantum physics, this is a minor part of passage A. Moreover, the author of passage B argues that the principle of "complementarity" doesn't apply to paranormal phenomena. However, the author of passage B never addresses whether we can apply the principle of "complementarity" to other areas outside of quantum physics.

  5. E
    Are there kinds of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    Does this say that both passages address whether paranormal phenomena exist or whether non-scientific evidence should hold weight against scientific evidence?

    No, so we can eliminate (E). Both passages address the existence of paranormal phenomena. We'd have to engage in some mental gymnastics to characterize paranormal phenomena as a "kind[] of knowledge." Even if we grant that paranormal phenomena constitute knowledge that hasn't been reduced to science, passage B still doesn't answer this question. Passage B says that paranormal "knowledge" hasn't been proven without science, but the author of passage B doesn't address whether there are other valid forms of knowledge that haven't been successfully reduced to science (spiritual or metaphysical knowledge, for instance)

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion