I was hoping to get some help on interpretation of this question because the question ends with the phrase "as these opinions are presented in the passage" based on this statement I took it to mean that the correct answer should have been presented in the passage.
I was deciding between B and D (leaning more heavily towards D) but went with B because it is in mentioned in line 47-50 while I did not find D mentioned anywhere in the text.
The correct choice with D and the reason I talked myself out of that choice is based on the structure of the question? Any insight on what this question is really asking at its core would be appreciated.
Thank you!
PT18 RC Passage 2 (Historians of Science) Q13 Forum
-
6lehderjets
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm
-
6lehderjets
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm
-
Manhattan LSAT Noah
- Posts: 744
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am
Re: PT18 RC Passage 2 (Historians of Science) Q13
I explained this question here, but to make like easy, here it is;
The strange wording in this question stem is just confining the question to what we learn are the opinions of the historians of science - perhaps they have some other opinions, but we only have to deal with the ones that this critic tells us about. This is a good question to think about before looking at the answers. What does the author think about these new historians? In short, they're wrong, but there's some good stuff in there. They're wrong because the natural world is stable in the sense that it's not changing based on our beliefs. Their ideas are useful in that the new historians said some interesting stuff about the social processes impact how scientific discoveries are made, made public, etc. - and this stuff does play into history. (D) notes this.
(A) is too extreme. Any credibility?
(B) is tempting, as the author agrees that the way that science happens is an interesting social process, however, the author never talks about studying the new historians themselves. The author wants us to study the scientific groups, not the historians.
(C) is contradicted - the author is most interested in the new historians discussion of how scientific groups work.
(E) is unsupported.
I hope that helps.
The strange wording in this question stem is just confining the question to what we learn are the opinions of the historians of science - perhaps they have some other opinions, but we only have to deal with the ones that this critic tells us about. This is a good question to think about before looking at the answers. What does the author think about these new historians? In short, they're wrong, but there's some good stuff in there. They're wrong because the natural world is stable in the sense that it's not changing based on our beliefs. Their ideas are useful in that the new historians said some interesting stuff about the social processes impact how scientific discoveries are made, made public, etc. - and this stuff does play into history. (D) notes this.
(A) is too extreme. Any credibility?
(B) is tempting, as the author agrees that the way that science happens is an interesting social process, however, the author never talks about studying the new historians themselves. The author wants us to study the scientific groups, not the historians.
(C) is contradicted - the author is most interested in the new historians discussion of how scientific groups work.
(E) is unsupported.
I hope that helps.
