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

The primary purposes of 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.

Strategy Overview

Review the main point of both passages, consider how the main points relate to each other, and find the answer choice that describes the primary similarities and differences between the two passages

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us to identify the overall relationship between the two passages. This big-picture question often shows up on comparative passages. For this reason, we should always take a moment after reading the passages to consider their overall relationship. Generally speaking, the authors of the two passages will draw similar conclusions about a similar topic or draw opposing conclusions about a similar topic. Additionally, the scope of the authors' arguments might be different — the authors might discuss the same topic, but one author might take a broad, bird's-eye view of the topic, while the other may dive into a more specific issue related to that topic. In this case, we determined that the passages draw opposing conclusions about the same topic. Passage A argues that paranormal phenomena may exist, albeit inaccessible to scientific inquiry. The author of passage B explicitly addresses Dyson's argument from passage A and disagrees with pretty much every point that Dyson makes. So, the correct answer will probably say that passage A tries to show that something might exist, while passage B tries to refute passage A's argument.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Passage A argues for Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    Does this say that passage A tries to show that something might exist, while passage B tries to refute passage A's argument?

    Nope, so we can cross this off. Besides, passage A doesn't argue for a general view — Dyson just expresses his personal views about the possible existence of paranormal phenomena. And because Dyson's view is not general, passage B can't provide a specific counterexample (a specific piece of evidence that's inconsistent with a general statement). So, (A) is way off the mark.

  2. B
    Passage A proposes a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    Does this say that passage A tries to show that something might exist, while passage B tries to refute passage A's argument?

    No, so let's eliminate (B). Besides, passage A doesn't argue for a "wide-ranging new theory." The view expressed in passage A is Dyson's personal view about paranormal phenomena. So, even though it's true that passage B "takes issue with some details" of passage A's argument, (B) still doesn't capture the relationship between the two passages.

  3. C
    Passage A argues that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    Does this say that passage A tries to show that something might exist, while passage B tries to refute passage A's argument?

    Yes! This is a new verbatim match for our anticipation. This captures the oppositional relationship between these two passages, and it doesn't misrepresent either author's argument. Therefore, we can justifiably select (C) and advance to the following question.

  4. D
    Passage A questions a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    Does this say that passage A tries to show that something might exist, while passage B tries to refute passage A's argument?

    Negative, so let's cross off (D). Besides, passage A doesn't necessarily question a "mainstream view." Passage A never discusses whether the conventional belief is that paranormal phenomena don't exist. Dyson claims that most people fall between the extremes of reductionist and traditional views. If the mainstream had a more reductionist view, they wouldn't believe in paranormal phenomena, and this answer choice may be accurate. But passage A never establishes that the mainstream is reductionist, and we have to eliminate (D).

  5. E
    Passage A argues that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    Does this say that passage A tries to show that something might exist, while passage B tries to refute passage A's argument?

    Nope, so we can cross (E) off. Besides, passage A doesn't argue that anything is "self-contradictory." Passage A argues that two things can be true at once (paranormal phenomena can be unobservable by science and at the same time still exist), which is basically the opposite of saying something is self-contradictory. Therefore, (E) doesn't get close to describing the relationship between these passages.

Discussion

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

View all discussions Start a discussion