Q25

[schmid215]

So I definitely messed up in picking (D), because it says "current debate", but I'm frustrated because (B) is not in any way the primary purpose of the final paragraph, which is why I got rid of it and was tempted by (D). The primary purpose of a paragraph that is an argument is to argue for a conclusion, and hence, the primary purpose of paragraph 3 is to argue that scientists ought to take up the question linguists have taken up. (B) is the premise in this argument, and as such cannot express the argument in the final paragraph's primary purpose. If the answer to this question is (B), the answer to question #22, the main point question, cannot be (D). But it is, because the primary purpose of the passage, expressed in the final paragraph, is to argue that scientists should take up the question that linguists have taken up.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're miscounting paragraphs. Q25 asks for the purpose of the third paragraph, not the last paragraph.

LSAT questions that ask for the purpose of a paragraph are among my favorites, because they normally just paraphrase the topic (1st) sentence of the paragraph in question.

The topic sentence of the 3rd paragraph says "lately the latter theory has been gaining wider acceptance", and then the paragraph goes on to explain/discuss the latter theory.

What was the latter theory? The previous sentence explains the latter theory as the idea that "the relationship between language and things is purely a matter of agreed-upon conventions, making knowledge tenuous, relative, and inexact."

(B) is just a paraphrase of this this idea.

Since you were just answering a question about the wrong paragraph, I won't explain things any more than that. Let me know if you have new questions now that you see what the question was really addressing.

[bearknowsthetrooth]

I also chose D, because it seemed that the first half of the paragraph was about the linguists' view and the second half was about how this type of thinking would be applicable in science. The "current debate" part made me suspicious but ultimately I chose it because paragraph 3 states "In science, a mathematical statement may be taken to account for every aspect of a phenomenon it is applied to, but, some would argue..."

I took the "some would argue" to mean that there is a similar debate going on in science, just one that is not as well established as the debate in linguistics. When the final paragraph states "But this question has yet to be significantly addressed in the sciences," I took that to mean the subsequent question of "what functions do models perform?" rather than the question of whether or not language shapes the way we conceptualize the truth. In other words, I thought there was an existing debate among scientists about the nature of truth, but they hadn't gotten to the point of asking the follow-up question in paragraph 4. Sorry if I'm being confusing!

[romance_is_all]

I also chose D, because it seemed that the first half of the paragraph was about the linguists' view and the second half was about how this type of thinking would be applicable in science. The "current debate" part made me suspicious but ultimately I chose it because paragraph 3 states "In science, a mathematical statement may be taken to account for every aspect of a phenomenon it is applied to, but, some would argue..."

I took the "some would argue" to mean that there is a similar debate going on in science, just one that is not as well established as the debate in linguistics. When the final paragraph states "But this question has yet to be significantly addressed in the sciences," I took that to mean the subsequent question of "what functions do models perform?" rather than the question of whether or not language shapes the way we conceptualize the truth. In other words, I thought there was an existing debate among scientists about the nature of truth, but they hadn't gotten to the point of asking the follow-up question in paragraph 4. Sorry if I'm being confusing!

I had the same thought process. This is how I see it:
True, a discussion of maths to science right after a elaboration of language to word does make the two groups of concepts "similar" and within each group, there are dissidents, thus making it attractive to infer there is a debate going on.
However, these inferences, while true, are not the purpose of being written by the author. In a larger picture, the author wants to elaborate the second point mentioned at the end of second paragraph so that he can talk about its implications, which is to lead us ask what does language/ maths really tell us about the word/science.

[mimimimi]

I understand P3 talks about the 2nd theory and convention, but I am having a really difficult time swallowing that "truth is merely a matter of convention."

Truth? Really? Where did that come from? I thought we were just talking about "the relationship between language and things" and perhaps "knowledge."

Can someone help me out?

[gaheexlee]

I understand P3 talks about the 2nd theory and convention, but I am having a really difficult time swallowing that "truth is merely a matter of convention."

Truth? Really? Where did that come from? I thought we were just talking about "the relationship between language and things" and perhaps "knowledge."

Can someone help me out?

That word ("truth") tripped me up too at first, but then I found textual support for it when I went back to the passage:

Line 31: "a statement is true only when there are no promising alternatives..."

"Truth" essentially, is just referencing the debate of whether or not language represents something that is in itself true, or if it is something humans have made up and agreed upon.

It's easier to go about this through POE. The most tempting answer for me was (D) but I was able to eliminate it by focusing on that the question stem asked about the purpose of the third paragraph. (D) describes a strategy that was used within the paragraph, but not the purpose as a whole.

[jqz]

I got (E) for this question (explain the theory that mathematical statements are a kind of language)

It seems to me that paragraph 3 does talk about the latter theory of linguistics in the first half of the paragraph, but that the second half of the paragraph then goes on to apply that theory to mathematics and therefore to stipulate how math is a language.

Why is E wrong and B right? It seems to me that B offers only a partial explanation

[ohthatpatrick]

I see why the transition in lines 32-34 is making people think of the 2nd half of this paragraph separately.

However, it really just represents a switch (to me) from stating the linguists' position to the author's evaluation/understanding of the linguists' position.

And in line 45, the beginning of P4, we are told that we will NOW be discussing the implications of "this theory". So the topic sentence of P4 also shows indirectly that P3 was about "this theory" certain linguists have.

(B) would probably be more apt if it said "elaborate and evaluate the position of linguists ...."

But there's nothing in (B) that's unsupported.

Meanwhile,
(A) has the wrong point of view entirely. P3 is about linguists who believe language does NOT have an essential correspondence.

(C) P3 only discusses the conventionalist position. Even though you could use that paragraph in a PASSAGE that illustrates the differences between conventionalist and essentialist, there are no differences cited WITHIN the third paragraph.

(E) Lines 3-12 are a good example of explaining the theory that mathematics is a kind of language.

P3, meanwhile, begins with a discussion of linguists who say that the relationship between language and things is just a function of convention.

Even though there are blips about mathematical language within P3, it would be weird if the topic sentence for the paragraph had NOTHING to do with the paragraph's function. Also, the first three sentences of P3 have nothing to do with (E).

(D) is definitely tricky. We WISH it said "discuss how a theory in linguistics could be applied to the question of how science explains things in mathematical language".

Instead, (D) says that P3 discusses the linguists' "debate" ... to show how one debate is similar to another, you need both sides of the linguists' debate and both sides of the current debate among scientists.

But P3 is only giving us one side of each debate. It shows how linguists who believe in conventionalism gives us some ideas to consider when thinking about how math may or may not "explain" science.

People correctly had qualms about proving there is a "current debate" among scientists about the nature of explanation.

The passage really only allows us to infer that the AUTHOR is considering these issues and "some others" might be as well.

There is no explicit reference to a current debate among scientists that justifies comparing it to the "discussion about the role played by language in the pursuit of knowledge .... going on among linguists for several decades".

In fact, the final sentence suggests that there has NOT been significant debate among scientists, since the question at the center of such a debate "has yet to be significantly addressed".

(B) is not a perfect answer, but it's only flaw is that it doesn't mention EVERYTHING it could about what P3 did.

(D) is considered incorrect, because it DOES mention stuff that DIDN'T happen in P3. (D) seems to lock in most tightly with line 49-51, "In science and mathematics, then, it would seem equally necessary to ask ..."

[LizaK873]

Linguists' debate: "language correspondent & consistent" VS "language is conventions & true if no alternative" (2nd paragraph)
Debate regarding scientific language: "it considers everything, so it's the former" VS "no, its not guaranteed" (3rd)

+ author applies linguist's [true if no alternative] point to science

So, this lead me to think, that something else was wrong with D:

D specifically says [debate among scientists],
and NOT [debate in science] or [debate regarding scientific language] -- the passage only says some would argue, NOT scientists.