Some of the philosophers find the traditional, subjective approach to

Question

Some of the philosophers find the traditional, subjective
approach to studying the mind outdated and
ineffectual. For them, the attempt to describe the
sensation of pain or anger, for example, or the
  (5)   awareness that one is aware, has been surpassed by
advances in fields such as psychology, neuroscience,
and cognitive science. Scientists, they claim, do not
concern themselves with how a phenomenon feels from
the inside; instead of investigating private evidence
  (10)   perceivable only to a particular individual, scientists
pursue hard data—such as the study of how nerves
transmit impulses to the brain—which is externally
observable and can be described without reference to
any particular point of view. With respect to features of
  (15)   the universe such as those investigated by chemistry,
biology, and physics, this objective approach has been
remarkably successful in yielding knowledge. Why,
these philosophers ask, should we suppose the mind to
be any different?

(20)   But philosophers loyal to subjectivity are not
persuaded by appeals to science when such appeals
conflict with the data gathered by introspection.
Knowledge, they argue, relies on the data of
experience, which includes subjective experience. Why
  (25)   should philosophy ally itself with scientists who would
reduce the sources of knowledge to only those data that
can be discerned objectively?

On the face of it, it seems unlikely that these two
approaches to studying the mind could be reconciled.
  (30)   Because philosophy, unlike science, does not progress
inexorably toward a single truth, disputes concerning
the nature of the mind are bound to continue. But what
is particularly distressing about the present debate is
that genuine communication between the two sides is
  (35)   virtually impossible. For reasoned discourse to occur,
there must be shared assumptions or beliefs. Starting
from radically divergent perspectives, subjectivists and
objectivists lack a common context in which to
consider evidence presented from each other’s
  (40)   perspectives.

The situation may be likened to a debate between
adherents of different religions about the creation of
the universe. While each religion may be confident that
its cosmology is firmly grounded in its respective
  (45)   sacred text, there is little hope that conflicts between
their competing cosmologies could be resolved by
recourse to the texts alone. Only further investigation
into the authority of the texts themselves would be
sufficient.

(50)   What would be required to resolve the debate
between the philosophers of mind, then, is an
investigation into the authority of their differing
perspectives. How rational is it to take scientific
description as the ideal way to understand the nature of
  (55)   consciousness? Conversely, how useful is it to rely
solely on introspection for one’s knowledge about the
workings of the mind? Are there alternative ways of
gaining such knowledge? In this debate,
epistemology—the study of knowledge—may itself
  (60)   lead to the discovery of new forms of knowledge about
how the mind works.    1 
 1. Which one of the following most accurately summarizes the main point of the passage?

(A) In order to gain new knowledge of the workings of the mind, subjectivists must take into consideration not only the private evidence of introspection but also the more objective evidence obtainable from disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science.
(B) In rejecting the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind, objectivists have made further progress virtually impossible because their approach rests on a conception of evidence that is fundamentally incompatible with that employed by subjectivists.
(C) Because the subjectivist and objectivist approaches rest on diametrically opposed assumptions about the kinds of evidence to be used when studying the mind, the only way to resolve the dispute is to compare the two approaches’ success in obtaining knowledge.
(D) Although subjectivists and objectivists appear to employ fundamentally irreconcilable approaches to the study of the mind, a common ground for debate may be found if both sides are willing to examine the authority of the evidence on which their competing theories depend.
(E) While the success of disciplines such as chemistry, biology, and physics appears to support the objectivist approach to studying the mind, the objectivist approach has failed to show that the data of introspection should not qualify as evidence.

2 
 2. Which one of the following most likely reflects the author’s belief about the current impasse between subjectivists and objectivists?

(A) It cannot be overcome because of the radically different conceptions of evidence favored by each of the two sides.
(B) It is resolvable only if the two sides can find common ground from which to assess their competing conceptions of evidence.
(C) It is unavoidable unless both sides recognize that an accurate understanding of the mind requires both types of evidence.
(D) It is based on an easily correctable misunderstanding between the two sides about the nature of evidence.
(E) It will prevent further progress until alternate ways of gaining knowledge about the mind are discovered.

3 
 3. The author’s primary purpose in writing the passage is to

(A) suggest that there might be valid aspects to both the subjective and the objective approaches to studying the mind
(B) advocate a possible solution to the impasse undermining debate between subjectivists and objectivists
(C) criticize subjectivist philosophers for failing to adopt a more scientific methodology
(D) defend the subjective approach to studying the mind against the charges leveled against it by objectivists
(E) evaluate the legitimacy of differing conceptions of evidence advocated by subjectivists and objectivists

4 
 4. According to the passage, subjectivists advance which one of the following claims to support their charge that objectivism is faulty?

(A) Objectivism rests on evidence that conflicts with the data of introspection.
(B) Objectivism restricts the kinds of experience from which philosophers may draw knowledge.
(C) Objectivism relies on data that can be described and interpreted only by scientific specialists.
(D) Objectivism provides no context in which to view scientific data as relevant to philosophical questions.
(E) Objectivism concerns itself with questions that have not traditionally been part of philosophical inquiry.

5 
 5. The author discusses the work of scientists in lines 7–14 primarily to

(A) contrast the traditional approach to studying the mind with the approach advocated by objectivists
(B) argue that the attempt to describe the sensation of pain should be done without reference to any particular point of view
(C) explain why scientists should not concern themselves with describing how a phenomenon feels from the inside
(D) criticize subjectivists for thinking there is little to be gained from studying the mind scientifically
(E) clarify why the objectivists’ approach has been successful in disciplines such as chemistry, biology, and physics

6 
 6. The author characterizes certain philosophers as “loyal to subjectivity” (line 20) for each of the following reasons EXCEPT:

(A) These philosophers believe scientists should adopt the subjective approach when studying phenomena such as how nerves transmit impulses to the brain.
(B) These philosophers favor subjective evidence about the mind over objective evidence about the mind when the two conflict.
(C) These philosophers maintain that subjective experience is essential to the study of the mind.
(D) These philosophers hold that objective evidence is only a part of the full range of experience.
(E) These philosophers employ evidence that is available only to a particular individual.

7 
 7. Based on the passage, which one of the following is most clearly an instance of the objectivist approach to studying the mind?

(A) collecting accounts of dreams given by subjects upon waking in order to better understand the nature of the subconscious
(B) interviewing subjects during extremes of hot and cold weather in order to investigate a connection between weather and mood
(C) recording subjects’ evaluation of the stress they experienced while lecturing in order to determine how stress affects facility at public speaking
(D) analyzing the amount of a certain chemical in subjects’ bloodstreams in order to investigate a proposed link between the chemical and aggressive behavior
(E) asking subjects to speak their thoughts aloud as they attempt to learn a new skill in order to test the relationship between mental understanding and physical performance

8 
 8. Which one of the following is most closely analogous to the debate described in the hypothetical example given by the author in the fourth paragraph?

(A) a debate among investigators attempting to determine a criminal’s identity when conflicting physical evidence is found at the crime scene
(B) a debate among jurors attempting to determine which of two conflicting eyewitness accounts of an event is to be believed
(C) a debate between two archaeologists about the meaning of certain written symbols when no evidence exists to verify either’s claim
(D) a debate between two museum curators about the value of a painting that shows clear signs of both genuineness and forgery
(E) a debate between two historians who draw conflicting conclusions about the same event based on different types of historical data

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

8. Which one of the following is most closely analogous to the debate described in the hypothetical example given by the author in the fourth paragraph?

Difficulty Level:   Hard

Explanation

One last analogy, one last Parallel Logic-type question, this one stemming from  Paragraph 4 . Remember, in that paragraph the author uses an analogous example (people of different religions debating the creation of the universe, but at an impasse because of each group’s sense of rightness) in order to illuminate the issue at hand. Now, we need to find an analogy to the analogy!

Remember the key point: A debate is at an impasse because each side is certain of its own separate evidence, and that evidence conflicts.

(A),(B)  In both choices, the debaters rely on the same set of data, whereas in the religious-argument example in  Paragraph 4  each side has its own sacred text.

In  (C) , the two archaeologists share the same written symbols. Since they don’t each have their own sources, this answer is no more parallel to the religious debate than are  (A)  or  (B).

(D) ’s painting shows clear signs of genuineness and forgery, but here again, both sides are using the same evidence. Besides, they’re relying on ambiguous evidence in  (D) , but  Paragraph 4  never suggests that the sacred texts were ambiguous in any way.

(E)  Finally we have what we want: two scholars drawing different conclusions because each is using, and trusting, his own separate evidence. As in the creation analogy and in the mind science debate of the passage overall, agreement in (E) will come hard because of the differences in the evidence and the high level of trust on each group’s part.

Answer: E

Source: Kaplan LSAT

giovannisumano · Answer

Thanks for the question  Sajjad1994 . Just an observation, I got confused because the last question refers to an example given in the fourth paragraph, but the way the lecture is laid out makes one think that the fourth paragraph is the last one. This made me waste a lot of time trying to make sense of the question.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

You are right! A one line space was required to be put in between 2nd and 3rd paragraph which i have edited accordingly, this passage has five paragraphs.

Thank you!

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

6. The author characterizes certain philosophers as “loyal to subjectivity” (line 20) for each of the following reasons EXCEPT:

Difficulty Level:   Hard

Explanation

Philosophers who are  “loyal to subjectivity”  are the topic of  paragraph 2 , so it’s there that we should search for this Detail question’s answer—or, rather, its four wrong answers, because four of the choices are cited as reasons for taking the subjectivist line. A good approach is to read (or re-read) the paragraph in question once, and even twice and then skim through the choices in search of one, any one, that matches up with what you’ve just read. In this way you can whittle away the more obvious choices, and be left with two or three from which you can pick the  “winner.”

The first sentence of  paragraph 2  indicates that subjectivists do not defer to  “science”  (read: objectivism) when it conflicts with their introspective data, which is what  (B)  is saying. Then, we hear that  “knowledge relies   on”  subjective experience; well,  “relies”  connotes a necessary condition, so  (C)  is confirmed. And what is subjective experience but the experience (as described in  lines 3–5 , for instance) of a single individual?—which is what  (E)  is saying.

The paragraph ends with the sentiment that subjectivists dislike the restriction of data in which objectivists indulge, which is  (D) . The last one standing is  (A) ......and truth be told,  (A)  might have jumped out at you the moment you saw it. To be sure, subjectivists rely on subjective data. But nowhere is it implied that they are so pigheadedly doctrinaire as to apply it in all circumstances. Certainly the circumstances described in  (A) , cited earlier in  lines 11–12 , are hard data, but there’s no reason to believe that subjectivists eschew all hard data. (Remember, the subjectivists are accusing their opponents of limiting their data; they would hardly indulge in a similar limitation.) So  (A)  is not at all associated with the subjectivists in this passage.

Answer: A

Source: Kaplan LSAT

aashish124 · Answer

Can anyone explain why option B is correct for Q4

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

I find a useful exercise, when I'm uncertain why a right answer is right or a wrong answer is wrong, is to consider the question on its own, without thinking about what the passage says. So let's do that with Q4:

Then--again, keeping the passage completely out of mind--I ask myself "What would a passage need to say in order for me to confidently choose an answer?"

Looking at B, to choose that answer as the answer to a question about how subjectivists claim objectivism is faulty, I pick the sentence apart. "Objectivism restricts"--okay, so this means Objectivism restrains, or keeps back, or limits in some way. What does B say Objectivism 'limits'?

It limits certain kinds of experience. So in B, there are certain kinds of experience that Objectivism limits. What kinds of experience? The kind that lets philosopher draw knowledge. Meaning--the kind that lets philosopher *know* something.

So to choose B, the passage needs to express or imply the idea that the Objectivists limit the kinds of experience that help philosophers know things. Can I find that idea in the passage? Well I look the the paragraph that lays out the subjectivists' main criticism of objectivism:

The sentence "Why should philosophy ally itself with scientists who would reduce the sources of knowledge to only those data that can be discerned objectively?" seems to match. The scientists (objectivists) would reduce (limit) the sources of knowledge (the experiences that let people know things). That's a good match.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

2. Which one of the following most likely reflects the author’s belief about the current impasse between subjectivists and objectivists?

Explanation

The  “impasse”  in this Inference question—the  “most likely reflects”  signals its nature—begins with Para 3, which talks about the need for common ground between perspectives before a genuine debate can even take place. A bit later, Para 5 discusses how to achieve common ground, by questioning the authority of each perspective. Putting these two ideas together yields correct answer  choice (B) , which paraphrases the notion that resolution may occur, should the two sides be able to set the debate on a proper logical footing.

(A),(C)  Each of these is too pessimistic about resolution, ignoring the real possibilities introduced in  lines 47–61.

(C)  has an additional problem in that the  “requirement”  to use both types of evidence isn’t part of the author’s proposed solution; it’s actually part of the subjectivist defense  (lines 23–27).

(D)  is a preposterous answer—no offense if you chose it—because  “easily correctable”  couldn’t be less apt as a description of this objectivist/subjectivist impasse. And  “misunderstanding”  is way too mild; these sides are on totally different footing.

(E)  is too pessimistic in a different way. The upshot of the objectivist/subjectivist debate is never stated, let alone that it will result in a prevention of progress. Besides, the author drives a wedge between the concepts of philosophy and progress altogether; see  lines 30–31.

Answer: B

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

4. According to the passage, subjectivists advance which one of the following claims to support their charge that objectivism is faulty?

Explanation

The categorical language and  “According to the passage”  signal that this is a Detail question, and the detail must come from Para 2, where the subjectivists’ stance is laid out. Their beef is summarized in a rhetorical question that needs some interpreting.  “Why,”  they ask,  “should philosophy ally itself with scientists who would reduce the sources of knowledge to only those data that can be discerned objectively?”  The scientists they mention are the objectivists, and we’re supposed to respond,  “Gee, no reason, I guess.”  In other words, subjectivists think that their opponents unduly restrict (“reduce”) the data from which they draw knowledge. That’s answer  choice (B).

(A)  Subjectivists argue that objectivists ignore data that relies on introspection, not that they rely on it.

(C)  While it is true that objectivism relies on scientific data, what subjectivists object to is that objectivists ignore  “soft”  data. (C)’s reference to  “scientific specialists”  is supported nowhere.

(D), (E)  Both choices claim that objectivist thought doesn’t jibe with normal philosophical inquiry. But the subjectivists in the passage don’t make such extreme statements; they simply disagree with the limits that objectivists place on the data from which knowledge is drawn. 
 
  Answer: B

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

5. The author discusses the work of scientists in lines 7–14 primarily to

Explanation

The lines to which this Logic/author purpose question directs us,  7–14 , begin with  “Scientists, they claim,...”  The  “they”  is objectivists. Remember, this is para 1, the para in which the objectivist credo—and objections to traditional subjectivism—are laid out. The description of scientists’ work in  lines 7–14  is prime fodder to that end, deftly contrasting the objectivists’ reliance on hard data with the  “traditional, subjective approach,”  and that points directly to  (A) . It’s the only choice that evokes the idea of contrasting the objectivist perspective with the  “old”  one.

(B)  Pain is merely one example (from lines 3–4) of the author’s general point about the objectivist approach. Certainly in the block of text that the question sends us to, the specific issue of pain is unaddressed.

(C)  The author doesn’t take sides in this debate, so answer  choice (C)  can’t be right. True, objectivists wouldn’t concern themselves with how a phenomenon feels on the inside, but the author has no interest in pushing that particular party line.

(D)  is a tempting answer choice because you’d expect objectivists to  “criticize”  their subjectivist opponents. But criticism is not what’s going on in  lines 7–14.  Rather, the author is explaining a viewpoint and providing a contrast.

(E)  The objectivists’ success in chemistry, biology and physics is cited only as an example of how that approach can work in science. But the topic of the passage is the study of the mind, an issue central to correct  choice (A)  but absent from  (E).

Answer: A

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja , can you please help me with Q4, option A. I understood why B is the answer but having hard time rejecting A.

guddo · Answer

4. According to the passage, subjectivists advance which one of the following claims to support their charge that objectivism is faulty?

The passage contrasts objectivists, who favor externally observable scientific data, with subjectivists, who insist that knowledge must include  subjective experience  revealed by introspection. It argues the debate cannot be resolved without examining the authority and limits of each perspective.

(A) Objectivism rests on evidence that conflicts with the data of introspection.

Subjectivists say they are not persuaded when scientific appeals conflict with introspection, but their core complaint is not “objectivism rests on conflicting evidence,” it is that objectivism wrongly limits what counts as knowledge.

(B) Objectivism restricts the kinds of experience from which philosophers may draw knowledge.

This matches exactly: subjectivists argue knowledge relies on experience, including subjective experience, and objectivists “reduce the sources of knowledge” to only objectively discernible data. This is their stated basis for calling objectivism faulty.

(C) Objectivism relies on data that can be described and interpreted only by scientific specialists.

The passage never says only specialists can describe or interpret the data; it says the data are externally observable and describable without a point of view.

(D) Objectivism provides no context in which to view scientific data as relevant to philosophical questions.

The “no common context” point is the author’s diagnosis about why the two camps cannot communicate well, not a specific charge the subjectivists make about objectivism’s evidence.

(E) Objectivism concerns itself with questions that have not traditionally been part of philosophical inquiry.

Nothing in the passage claims objectivism is nontraditional; the dispute is about what counts as legitimate evidence and knowledge.

Answer: (B)

guddo · Answer

Option A is wrong because it claims objectivism  rests on evidence  that conflicts with introspection. The passage does not say that.

What the passage says is: subjectivists are not persuaded by scientific appeals when those appeals conflict with introspection. That is about when they refuse to accept an argument, not a claim that objectivism’s foundation is “conflicting evidence.”

Their actual complaint is  a scope complaint : objectivism wrongly limits what can count as knowledge to only objectively discernible data, which excludes subjective experience. That is exactly what option B states.

Some of the philosophers find the traditional, subjective approach to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Some of the philosophers find the traditional, subjective approach to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards