Q7

[pinkdatura]

Instead of choosing the right answer C, I chose A. When doing this question, I only re-read paragraph 2 without noticing C is explicitly mentioned in ln46. However, I am still wondering why A is wrong. Is it because "the emotion is inexplicable" is actually an idea of humanist in accusing those scientist's reductionism, and scientist in fact does not actually "encourage" this idea?
Also in re-reading passage the question stem clearly directs me to paragraph, how would it likely expect me to come up with some ideas form paragraph 4?
Thank you

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

It is a bit cruel that the proof for (D) is planted in an unexpected place -- I agree with you that paragraph 4 is not the first place it makes sense to look.

I also agree that paragraph 2 is the most likely place for the proof, but it's no guarantee the answer will be in there. The misunderstandings of humanists are central to the main argument and are therefore discussed throughout. If something is secondary to the central argument and only mentioned in one paragraph, I would certainly expect the answer to be in that paragraph. However, if something is directly related to the main argument in question (in this case, it would be separation of humanities and sciences vs. not having separation), it can be discussed in various places.

In terms of #7, (A) is specifically about whether emotions can be explained or not. There is never any direct discussion of whether scientists feel emotions can be explained or not. We certainly don't have enough proof to say for sure that scientists DO NOT think emotions can be explained.

Hope that helps. Please follow up if I haven't addressed any of your concerns.

[zainrizvi]

Lines 18-20 suggest that humanists believe science tries to ignore, or explain away the most essential human values. Hence, I was tempted by choice (E).

Is (E) wrong because science encourages description not equivalent to science encourages explanation of human values? Or am I missing something else?

Edit: (E) is wrong because both science and humanities attempt to describe and explain. The misunderstanding for some humanists is that they "either ignore or explain AWAY" the most essential human values. There is a difference between explaining/describing, and explaining away.

[theanswer21324]

I'm assuming that the support for (C) is taken from lines 44-46.

However, how do we know that this is an example of what the author thinks is a misunderstanding of science by a humanist? If you look at the next part of the same sentence, it says "the humanities in fact profit from attempts at controlled evaluation." I don't think that there is anything in the passage that supports the view that a misunderstanding of humanism by scientists is that they cannot derive any benefit from controlled evaluation (at least it is never explicitly mentioned in the passage). Likewise, I don't see how you can infer that humanists believe that science depends exclusively on measurable data.

More than anything, this sentence sounds like a rhetorical device used by the author that is a slight hyperbole in order to make a point. I don't think he is really saying that humanists/scientists have these particular misunderstandings.

What are your guys' thoughts? Thanks in advance for your help

[timsportschuetz]

It is important to note the true scope of this particular question stem! It is asking about the author's opinion, not those of the critics'. Notice how paragraphs 2 and 3 simply state the viewpoints of critics' and their beliefs - these paragraphs are very objective in nature. Not until paragraph 3 does the author actually make his feelings and interpretations known. Notice how the majority of very attractive wrong answer choices mistakenly point to the objective observations of paragraph 2. Instead, we have to focus on the question stem (which I have come to learn is an extremely important and often-ignored process) and how it specifically limits the particular scope.

[asafezrati]

It is important to note the true scope of this particular question stem! It is asking about the author's opinion, not those of the critics'. Notice how paragraphs 2 and 3 simply state the viewpoints of critics' and their beliefs - these paragraphs are very objective in nature. Not until paragraph 3 does the author actually make his feelings and interpretations known. Notice how the majority of very attractive wrong answer choices mistakenly point to the objective observations of paragraph 2. Instead, we have to focus on the question stem (which I have come to learn is an extremely important and often-ignored process) and how it specifically limits the particular scope.

I disagree. Paragraphs 2 and 3 aren't objective.

The author presents his own view about the extremist humanists and scientists. Some words make it fairly obvious:
Paragraph 1
"An effort should be made to dispel the misunderstandings.." 1-2
Paragraph 2
"Some humanists.. absurd" 9-11
"This is a caricature.. humanists.. who are ignorant of.." 14-16
Paragraph 3
Continues with the idea of showing how the two groups are wrong.

So an answer choice could theoretically be found in paragraphs 2 and 3.

[pewals13]

(C) this is the correct answer because it represents an incorrect belief about science held by humanists.
(E) This is wrong because it is not an incorrect belief--the author states in the fourth paragraph that both disciplines attempt to "describe and explain."

There is also a clear difference between "explaining away" and "encouraging the use of description."

I think the key here was identifying a belief that is (1) False (2) Held by humanists in the opinion of the author.

[b.lin.22.13]

It is a bit cruel that the proof for (D) is planted in an unexpected place -- I agree with you that paragraph 4 is not the first place it makes sense to look.

I also agree that paragraph 2 is the most likely place for the proof, but it's no guarantee the answer will be in there. The misunderstandings of humanists are central to the main argument and are therefore discussed throughout. If something is secondary to the central argument and only mentioned in one paragraph, I would certainly expect the answer to be in that paragraph. However, if something is directly related to the main argument in question (in this case, it would be separation of humanities and sciences vs. not having separation), it can be discussed in various places.

In terms of #7, (A) is specifically about whether emotions can be explained or not. There is never any direct discussion of whether scientists feel emotions can be explained or not. We certainly don't have enough proof to say for sure that scientists DO NOT think emotions can be explained.

Hope that helps. Please follow up if I haven't addressed any of your concerns.

I was originally tempted by (A), but when reviewing my work I though (A) was directly contradicted by the passage in lines 19-20 "it is claimed that science either ignores or explains away most essential human values"

[AlexY297]

Hello, for choice D)"Science recognizes an irreducible spiritual element that makes the arts inexplicable" I chose this answer since in lines 19-24 "Those who believe this also assert that there are aspects of the human mind... the arts, that contain an irreducible spiritual element and for that reason can never be adequately explained by science."

Now reading this forum, am I mistaken since this is not a misunderstanding of the humanists rather a perspective of the humanists?

Thank you,
Alex

[ohthatpatrick]

Correct. The question stem is asking,
"If you were a humanist, how would you (erroneously) describe a scientist?"

They wouldn't say that science RECOGNIZES an irreducible spiritual element. They would say the opposite, that science fails to appreciate the irreducible spiritual element, and scientists act instead as if everything reduces to mechanics / bodies in motion.

Hope this helps.