Q8

[zzumrad]

With the q8 I couldn't infer right answer that humanism has been benefited from science before... Could you clear out it?

[dan]

Thanks for the question.

Keep in mind that when the LSAT asks us to infer something, we generally don't have to infer too much. In other words, we should be able to find direct supporting evidence in the text that we can use to prove our inference. Here's an explanation of #8:

Question Type: Inference (46-47)
The final paragraph of the passage gives a justification for reconciling science and the humanities in the form of "scientific humanism." Part of this justification is the recognition that science already benefits from the humanities, and the humanities already benefit from science. Lines 46-47 state "the humanities in fact profit from attempts at controlled evaluation." If this is the case, then we can infer that humanists have profited from scientific methods ("controlled evaluation"). Answer (D) clearly states this inference.

(A) is an unsupported interpretation. Scientific humanism is not characterized by the extension of description and explanation in the two fields, but rather by a reconciliation of the two fields.
(B) is contradictory interpretation. Lines 43-44 clearly state that the objective of both fields, science included, is to gain a clearer understanding of people.
(C) is a contradictory interpretation. Lines 46-47 clearly state that humanities could benefit from controlled measures.
(E) is an unsuupported intepretation. Lines 50-53 state that collaboration is unlikely IF uninformed persons aren’t able to change their views, but this is not the same as saying that collaboration is unlikely in any event. In fact, the author goes on to explain the possibilities of collaboration.

Notice that the correct answer required us to infer from "profit from controlled evaluation" (as stated in the text) to "profit from scientific methods" (as stated in answer (D). This isn't a very big inference at all! Again, you should always be able to find supporting text for an inference question.

Hope this helps!

dan

[skapur777]

What does "extension of description and explanation frmo science to the humanities" mean?

And furthermore, line 46-47 says that humanities in fact profit from attempts at controlled evaluation. i thought this meant that when the scientists do controlled evaluation, humanities benefits, not what choice D says that humanists have profited from USING methods generally considered useful primarily to scientists...i didnt get the inference that they themselves used it.

[zainrizvi]

This is gonna sound weird but I don't really understand the sentence structure of lines 44-48. It just sounds awkward to me... can someone rephrase it? Does it mean "by achieving this understanding?"

[americano1990]

My take on "extension of description and explanation from science to the humanities" basically is that whatever description and explanation used in science would be applied to humanities.

I cant really think of a good example, but lets say an explanation of science would be 'all organisms are made of cells." That rule would be applied somehow to a counterpart in humanities. Can you think of any good eg?

But in any case, we know that this is not supported by the passage. All we know from the passage is that in line 43, "both science and humanities try to describe&explain," and also that although they start explanation and description from different points, they end up reaching for the same objective. And scientific humanism essentially tries to merge the two disciplines on the basis of the common element: objectives.

Since this is the case, if you know where the author is getting at, you would be able to get rid of (A) even with a very crude understanding that Ive posited above.

As for your second question, take a look at the text again. I think this may be a response that also applies to "Zainrizvi."
So in lines 44-47, we are told that "in achieving this understanding.....attempts at controlled eval." This means essentailly that in the course of achieving the common objective of understanding the people and their world humanities profit from attempts at controlled evaluation. So it is the humanities who actually conduct controlled eval in order to profit from it.

Lastly, if anyones interested, although the lines 44-47 are written in the present tense, we can nonetheless give support for answer choice (D). This is like saying "I work at Starbucks." Although this is present tense, we can infer that he has done so in the past, present and in the future. And going back to 44-47, we know that humanities have had their objective for awhile, and we are told "in achieving this understanding....they have profited." So yea this is something that works like the Starbucks analogy so hence is the proof for (D)

[zainrizvi]

I'm still a bit confused by that sentence itself. Does it mean BY achieving this understanding, they will realize science does not depend exclusively etc etc...


Also, I'm confused as to how you can make that inference.... present indicates past and future?

[maryadkins]

I'm still a bit confused by that sentence itself. Does it mean BY achieving this understanding, they will realize science does not depend exclusively etc etc...

I'd think of it as "in order to achieve this understanding..." When we think of it that way, we see that the rest of the sentence tells us the process they use to get to the understanding: science doesn't depend just on data, and humanities profit by attempting controlled evaluation. Does that help clarify?

Also, I'm confused as to how you can make that inference.... present indicates past and future?

I wouldn't state a general rule like, "Present includes past and future." But in the context of this passage, science and humanities are being discussed generally in present terms. When we get a phrase like, "Humanities profit," we can assume that this means it has happened before. If the humanities had never profited, then could we say, "Humanities profit?" It wouldn't be true.

Hope this helps!

[shirando21]

yeah, I think the tense is the obstacle for me in this question. I was hesitating whether to choose B or D. Now I can understand why D is correct. I picked B, as I thought the objectives are to obtain a clearer understanding of people and their world, which has not happened yet.

Can anyone explain the tense in B?

[pewals13]

I think (B) is wrong because it goes against the message of the passage, which is that both science and the humanities have similar objectives that are achieved by different means.

(B) infers that humanists espouse an objective that scientists do not yet share, I think this is exactly the kind of "misconception" that the author is arguing against, particularly by emphasizing the similarity of the overarching goals shared by the two disciplines.

(A) is wrong because it mischaracterizes "scientific humanism." The fourth paragraph states that both disciplines already attempt to "describe and explain," there is no extension of this objective from one to the other. Rather, the extension occurs through the applicability of methods across the disciplines.

(C) This is stated in lines 44-47.
"In achieving this understanding, science in fact does not depend exclusively on measurable data, and the humanities can in fact profit from attempts at controlled evaluation."

[JenniferK632]

I struggled with this question because even the most likely answer choices seemed somewhat wrong at best. Ultimately, I chose (a), which was wrong.

(a) is wrong because there is no extending of description and explanation happening. We already know that the sciences and humanities cover both description and explanation.

But in my thinking,
(d) was also wrong because of the tense that many have already identified. The passage, present tense, seemed to speak on controlled evaluation as a hypothetical--that, if people understood scientific humanism, humanities could profit off of controlled evaluation. Obviously, the answer choice is past tense.

What do you do when you have narrowed to two wrongish answer choices, but you know one must be the correct answer?

[Laura Damone]

I would actually argue that the tense of D is fine. "In achieving this understanding, science in fact does not depend exclusively on measurable data, and the humanities in fact profit from attempts at controlled evaluation." That's present tense. But it also implies past tense. As long the humanities have achieved said understanding, we can infer that they profited from attempts at controlled evaluation, because in achieving that understanding, that's what happens.

But even if you don't buy recognize this in real time, I think you can still select D as the lesser of two evils. Sometimes, an LSAT question is hard because 2 answers look right. Other times, and LSAT question is hard because no answers look right. This question falls into that second category.

For questions like these, it's all about weighing the problems of the contenders against one another, knowing that one will be a fatal flaw and the other will be a "yellow flag" rather than grounds for elimination.

For A vs. D, that would look like this in my mind:

Hmm...A looks OK, but I think it's actually contradicted. We're told that "Both science and the humanities attempt to describe and explain." That means that they both do it already, not that it extends from one to the other. D looks OK, too, but isn't the tense wrong? I think the passage is saying they're doing it in the present or the future, not in the past. Whelp, a shifty tense is less offensive than outright contradiction, so I'm going with D.

Hope this helps!

[RiM159]

I was very surprised to find out that D was the right answer, but now fully understand why. I ruled it out because the scope seemed too narrow and that there's no way this question was referring to a tiny detail hidden in the last paragraph that I did not identify as a part of my passage map, a concluding statement or key argument.

Should I have picked up on that detail in my initial read as a significant detail? If so, what makes it so significant and how might I have recognized it quickly?

After working wrong to right, I never landed on anything that stuck out as right so in a time crunch I went with A. While I see now why that's wrong, are there any quick tricks to find the right answer that I missed on this one? Thanks!!

[Misti Duvall]

I was very surprised to find out that D was the right answer, but now fully understand why. I ruled it out because the scope seemed too narrow and that there's no way this question was referring to a tiny detail hidden in the last paragraph that I did not identify as a part of my passage map, a concluding statement or key argument.

Should I have picked up on that detail in my initial read as a significant detail? If so, what makes it so significant and how might I have recognized it quickly?

After working wrong to right, I never landed on anything that stuck out as right so in a time crunch I went with A. While I see now why that's wrong, are there any quick tricks to find the right answer that I missed on this one? Thanks!!

No quick tricks, but it could help to adjust your analysis a bit for questions like this in the future. The question is asking which statement the author would be most likely to agree with, so it's totally fine for the answer to be a narrow statement. And knowing the author's opinion is much more important than finding a tiny detail.

For this question, the author in the last paragraph is pretty clearly in favor of a positive collaboration between scientists and humanists. Based on that alone, you can eliminate answer choices B, C, and E. And answer choice A is a mischaracterization of what the author describes as scientific humanism, which is a major detail about which the author is clearly in favor.

Anytime you get an author question on RC, focus on the author's opinion and work wrong to right from there.

Hope this helps!

[JeremyK460]

the passage says that descriptions and explanations are something they both do but execute from different starting points.
(a) brings description and explanation together which is the opposite of 'widely separate' starting points