Hey! The reason I got rid of (B) was the AC's labeling of Steele as a "modern biologist", when the passage only refers to him as a "molecular immunologist" (line 13) . Is this a leap we're expected to take?
I was stuck between (B) and (D), but went with (D) even though it brought in "overall merits".
Also, is (E) wrong because of the "philosophy of science"? Thank you!
LSAT Forum
6 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- betsy.abraham
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 5
- Joined: March 03rd, 2016
-
- Didius Falco
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 15
- Joined: July 30th, 2014
Re: Q23
Hey Betsy!
I am not a Manhattan expert, but I got here first, so I thought I'd throw in my two sense in in the interim, in case its helpful : )
--------------
On the modernity of Steele. If you look a lines 10-13, you will note this sentence structure:
"Most modern biologists are adamant that nothing of the sort occurs, ever. But the molecular immunologist Edward J. Steele is attempting to revive Lamarckism: he and his colleagues claim to have found evidence...." yadayada.
To me, this gives the strong implication (almost certain, in my opinion) that Steele is indeed part of the category introduced in the preceding sentence, and that his specific identifiers are subcategory to, or at least overlap categorically with, the previously raised 'biologist' designation.
On the test, this was enough for me. So, I think the short answer to your question is: yes this is a leap that it is reasonable to make.
----------
However, I did a little digging, and I found an even clearer justification in the last paragraph for you!
(I have to '....' my way through to demonstrate clearly and concisely which identifiers are referring to which persons, so please feel free to go check it out yourself and double check my work. That said, I don't think I am making any editorial leaps by cutting out 3 straight lines of irrelevancy to our discussion
)
Within Lines 48-56:
"Steele and his colleagues claim to have found such evidence....Other Biologists are not so easily swayed."
I can't say I would have looked this closely for airtight language on the real test, but for what its worth, it is in there at the end.
I hope I helped out!
P.S: In (E): Yes, "a case study in the philosophy of science" has no real relation to the article at all. I think not only is "philosophy of science" wildly out of range, so is "case study"!
I am not a Manhattan expert, but I got here first, so I thought I'd throw in my two sense in in the interim, in case its helpful : )
--------------
On the modernity of Steele. If you look a lines 10-13, you will note this sentence structure:
"Most modern biologists are adamant that nothing of the sort occurs, ever. But the molecular immunologist Edward J. Steele is attempting to revive Lamarckism: he and his colleagues claim to have found evidence...." yadayada.
To me, this gives the strong implication (almost certain, in my opinion) that Steele is indeed part of the category introduced in the preceding sentence, and that his specific identifiers are subcategory to, or at least overlap categorically with, the previously raised 'biologist' designation.
On the test, this was enough for me. So, I think the short answer to your question is: yes this is a leap that it is reasonable to make.
----------
However, I did a little digging, and I found an even clearer justification in the last paragraph for you!
(I have to '....' my way through to demonstrate clearly and concisely which identifiers are referring to which persons, so please feel free to go check it out yourself and double check my work. That said, I don't think I am making any editorial leaps by cutting out 3 straight lines of irrelevancy to our discussion
)Within Lines 48-56:
"Steele and his colleagues claim to have found such evidence....Other Biologists are not so easily swayed."
I can't say I would have looked this closely for airtight language on the real test, but for what its worth, it is in there at the end.
I hope I helped out!
P.S: In (E): Yes, "a case study in the philosophy of science" has no real relation to the article at all. I think not only is "philosophy of science" wildly out of range, so is "case study"!
-
- betsy.abraham
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 5
- Joined: March 03rd, 2016
Re: Q23
Thank you so much for that thorough explanation, youre awesome!! 
-
- seychelles1718
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 136
- Joined: November 01st, 2015
Re: Q23
I have a question about C. Is "evaluating" wrong because the author doesn't really discuss the overall merits of Steel's hypothesis (discussing positive or negative sides of the hypothesis) but rather he is mainly presenting/describing the hypothesis?
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 2 times.
Re: Q23
I'm assuming you meant (D).
Yes, we could kill it since the author didn't do any real 'evaluating'. She seems somewhat skeptical, but certainly not outright dismissive, of Steele's research.
More importantly, this answer would have nothing to do with Steele. The "evolutionary theory that has been rejected by most modern biologists" is Lamarckism.
So would you feel comfortable saying that the primary concern of this passage was "the author evaluating Lamarck"?
Yes, we could kill it since the author didn't do any real 'evaluating'. She seems somewhat skeptical, but certainly not outright dismissive, of Steele's research.
More importantly, this answer would have nothing to do with Steele. The "evolutionary theory that has been rejected by most modern biologists" is Lamarckism.
So would you feel comfortable saying that the primary concern of this passage was "the author evaluating Lamarck"?
6 posts Page 1 of 1