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

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

Credited answer: D

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

Strategy Overview

Consult notes and choose the answer choice that (1) ties the author of passage B's evidence to their conclusion, and (2) the author of passage A would disagree with

Answer Anticipation

First, what even is this question? The phrase "following principle" in the question stem might ring a bell if you've been working on Principle questions in Logical Reasoning. This phrase shows up in Following Principles questions in Logical Reasoning and Reading Comp. In these questions, we have to pick the answer choice with the principle — or rule — that connects the author's evidence to the conclusion the author reaches. This question asks us for the principle that will tie the author of passage B's evidence to their conclusion. So, as we check each answer choice, we'll want to make sure that it connects a piece of evidence the author of passage B uses to a conclusion the author draws. This question also specifies that the author of passage A must disagree with the correct answer. That criterion can help us anticipate what the correct answer will say. We know the two authors diverge in their view on whether paranormal phenomena can exist. Dyson argues that it can exist, even if it exists beyond the purview or investigative tools of science. On the other hand, the author of passage B thinks that science has conclusively failed to produce evidence that paranormal phenomena exist, which means the phenomena do not exist. Therefore, the correct answer will probably say something about proving a phenomenon in a controlled setting. The author of passage B would argue that "if something cannot be proven in a controlled setting, then it does not exist." Dyson would reject this argument, since some phenomena exist outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. We can look for our anticipation in the answer choices. But if we can't find our anticipation, we can check each answer choice by first asking if it connects the author of passage B's evidence to their conclusion. If so, we'll ask the follow-up question: would the author of passage A disagree with this principle? If an answer choice passes both tests, we can select it confidently.

Answer choices

  1. A
    There are principles of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    Does this connect the author of passage B's evidence to one of their conclusions?

    Nope. According to our note for passage B, the author argues that the "complementarity" principle doesn't apply to paranormal phenomena. But that doesn't mean the author thinks the "complementarity" principle can't be applied to any study of human behavior! Since this principle doesn't necessarily underlie the argument in passage B, we can cross (A) off.

  2. B
    Either all knowledge can Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    Does this connect the author of passage B's evidence to one of their conclusions?

    No. Neither the main point nor our notes for passage B suggest the author thinks that you have to be entirely reductionist ("all knowledge can be reduced to science") or entirely traditional ("science is in no way privileged over other sources of knowledge"). Therefore, we can safely assume that this principle doesn't underlie the argument in passage B, and we can eliminate (B).

    Besides, we wouldn't find support for the claim that you have to be entirely reductionist or traditional if we re-read all of passage B. The only time the author of passage B addresses the reductionist/traditional dichotomy is to say that Dyson's traditional ideology does not change the scientific fact that paranormal phenomena don't exist (PB, P1, S9).

  3. C
    Scientific facts are valid Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    Does this connect the author of passage B's evidence to one of their conclusions?

    Well, yes. The main point of passage B is that repeated scientific results show that paranormal phenomena do not exist. This suggests that the author of passage B thinks scientific facts supersede people's views. Indeed, if we reviewed passage B, we'd find that the author says that Dyson's traditional ideology does not change the scientific fact that paranormal phenomena don't exist (PB, P1, S9). So, this principle definitely underlies passage B's argument. And that brings us to the next question ...

    Does Dyson disagree with this principle?

    Not necessarily! Dyson might agree with this principle. After all, Dyson argues that paranormal phenomena might exist beyond the realm or investigative techniques of science. So, it may be a valid "scientific fact" that paranormal phenomena don't exist, irrespective of whether one identifies as more of a reductionist or traditionalist. Nonetheless, paranormal phenomena can still exist outside of science — a valid, un-scientific fact, if you will. Since Dyson doesn't necessarily disagree with this principle, we can't say that he'd reject it. Therefore, we need to eliminate (C).

  4. D
    If the existence of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    Does this connect the author of passage B's evidence to one of their conclusions?

    Yes! As we anticipated, this connects the evidence in passage B that science has conclusively failed to show that paranormal phenomena exist to the conclusion that these phenomena do not exist. The author of passage B claims that science has not demonstrated the existence of paranormal phenomena in controlled experimental tests (PB, P1, S4). So, this principle strengthens passage B's conclusion that these phenomena do not exist (PB, P1, S8). So, this principle underlies passage B's argument. And that brings us to the next question ...

    Does Dyson disagree with this principle?

    Yes! As we expressed in the main point for passage A, Dyson argues that the lack of scientific proof of paranormal phenomena doesn't mean that these phenomena don't exist, as paranormal phenomena may exist beyond scientific investigation or be complementary with scientific inquiry. So, Dyson would reject this principle.

    Since this answer choice passes both questions, we can confidently select it and advance to the following question.

  5. E
    The support that anecdotes Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    Does this connect the author of passage B's evidence to one of their conclusions?

    Yeah. According to our note for passage B, "anecdotal evidence doesn't rebut repeated scientific results." So, we can definitely conclude this principle underlies passage B's argument. And that brings us to the next question ...

    Does Dyson disagree with this principle?

    Not necessarily! Dyson might agree with this principle. After all, our note for passage A's third paragraph shows that Dyson points out that the support for paranormal phenomena is anecdotal rather than scientific. If we reviewed this part of the passage, we wouldn't find evidence suggesting that Dyson believes anecdotal evidence can be as strong as controlled experimental evidence. Even Dyson's affiliation with the traditionalist view doesn't mean that Dyson thinks non-scientific evidence can be better than scientific evidence. That just means he thinks that knowledge can come from non-scientific places. So, we can't say that Dyson would reject this principle. Therefore, we need to eliminate (E).

Discussion

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

View all discussions Start a discussion