Passage Discussion

[obobob]

So is the last sentence basically saying that the modular theory is in part relying on circular reasoning?

[ohthatpatrick]

I don't know if circular reasoning is an apt term (where the conclusion restates the premise or an author presupposes the truth of her conclusion).

If we were relating it to a famous flaw, it might be more like a Sampling flaw, in this case in which the evidence is inherently biased.

Circular would be like:
The mind is modular in nature. After all, if you think about all the various capacities our brain has, they clearly must each be assigned to a specific part of the brain.

Sampling version:
The mind is modular, not holistic, in nature. After all, check out these brain scans --- see how only specific parts of the brain are working during certain mental tasks?


The author is saying, the nature of a brain scan involves subtracting away the holistic activity of the brain and showing only the modular areas of intensified-activity. By doing so, the scan overemphasizes the local intensity and filters out the holistic activity, so it gives us this artificial sense of having certain mental activities cleanly isolated in certain parts of the brain.

Essentially, the author is suggesting that if brain scans weren't subtractive, we would have a more nuanced picture --- certain areas of the brain appear to be MORE involved in certain cognitive tasks, but the entire brain still seems to be actively involved at least somewhat.

Hope this helps.

[b33eazy]

Hey, I just did this reading comp and really struggled. I'm confused because I usually heard that when reading science passages, I need to find the cause and effect. I'm unclear what the cause and effect is here, so it was really difficult for me to process this reading.

[smiller]

Our apologies for the slow reply. What you're describing sounds like something that applies more to LR than RC. When the stimulus in an LR question involves a scientific topic, and particularly a medical one, the conclusion often makes a claim of causation based on a premise that describes a correlation. This is flawed reasoning—the famous "Correlation Does Not Prove Causation" flaw—and noticing that flaw may be extremely helpful when evaluating answers.

But even in LR, I wouldn't tell someone that they always need to find cause and effect. Always look for it, but there is no rule that says every science-based LR question must involve causation.

In RC, it's more useful to notice when a passage presents two opposing viewpoints or contrasting situations. This passage describes the widespread use of brain scans as pictures of mental activity and points out problems with using bran scans that way. We want to pay attention to that conflict between the widespread use vs. the problems with doing so.

As in LR, if a science passage in RC mentions cause and effect then it's certainly good to notice that. But if an RC passage describes a normal situation and a problem with that situation, or a problem and a solution, or an old method of doing something and a newer method, or two opposing opinions, it's much more useful to notice that and then understand the passage through that lens.

[JenniferK632]

Thanks, Scott! What would be the scale in this passage?

Our apologies for the slow reply. What you're describing sounds like something that applies more to LR than RC. When the stimulus in an LR question involves a scientific topic, and particularly a medical one, the conclusion often makes a claim of causation based on a premise that describes a correlation. This is flawed reasoning—the famous "Correlation Does Not Prove Causation" flaw—and noticing that flaw may be extremely helpful when evaluating answers.

But even in LR, I wouldn't tell someone that they always need to find cause and effect. Always look for it, but there is no rule that says every science-based LR question must involve causation.

In RC, it's more useful to notice when a passage presents two opposing viewpoints or contrasting situations. This passage describes the widespread use of brain scans as pictures of mental activity and points out problems with using bran scans that way. We want to pay attention to that conflict between the widespread use vs. the problems with doing so.

As in LR, if a science passage in RC mentions cause and effect then it's certainly good to notice that. But if an RC passage describes a normal situation and a problem with that situation, or a problem and a solution, or an old method of doing something and a newer method, or two opposing opinions, it's much more useful to notice that and then understand the passage through that lens.

[Laura Damone]

Hi, Jennifer!

I would say that the scale for this passage would be: pro-modular theory of the mind vs. anti modular theory of the mind.

The The author and the theorist from P2, William Uttal, both come down on the "anti" side. If you find it helpful to envision the scale tilting towards the side that gets more coverage, this scale would tilt towards "anti."

I'd also like to briefly address your earlier question about Cause and Effect in Sci passages. I used to work for another company that structured their approach to sci passages around cause and effect, but I found that it wasn't a consistent enough pattern. The passage structures that Scott cited are also common in science passages, as is the "question and answer" format of this particular passage! So I totally agree with his assessment: look for patterns beyond cause and effect in Sci passages and you will be rewarded!