Top Law Schools

I'm making a topic about this particular passage because it completely steamrolled me. I got 2 questions wrong in the other 3 passages. This one? -5. I got 5 out of 8 questions wrong on this one passage.

Specifically, I got 9, 12, 13, 14, and 16 wrong. Now, I understand why I got 9, 12, and 13 wrong. However, I have significant beef with this passage. How do I tackle things like this?

My biggest problem is with question 16. The fact that "imaginary animal" = "truth" means that the author absolutely does not believe the truth exists at all? If I killed a man, then pursuing that truth using objective means is like chasing an imaginary animal? I chose B because "valuable mineral" = "truth", but "searching in worthless stones" = "objectivity" so you can't find valuable minerals in worthless stones. I really can not sit easy with this question at all.

Number 13 is extremely ambiguous. I picked D initially (right answer), but changed it to E. What does "unreservedly" mean and to what extent does that constitute it? I re-read the last few sentences and the author seemed pretty damn optimistic.

Again, number 14 is just like 16. I find it hard to believe that the author completely abandons the quest for truth. (Picked D, right answer was B). I can see that B is right, but I don't see that D is wrong. I see the author contesting against objectivism, not the pursuit of absolute truth.

Nowhere in this passage does the author even allude to him or her believing "the truth is unattainable by any means," which is apparently an essential inference to get these questions right.

I picked D initially too but then changed it to E for question 13. I'll have to review the question more and figure why I chose E and why D is truly right. I agree with the ambiguous nature of the question.

For 16, lines 28-31 and lines 18-20 helped me pick the right answer. The author basically says that the laws quest for truth consists of locating an objective description... but the next sentence says that there is no such thing as the neutral, objective observer. I took that one step further and inferred that since there is no objective observer, there is no objective description. Therefore, a hunt for an imaginary animal seems most similar. The search for a valuable stone among worthless stone, at least in my mind, implies that this valuable stone exists.

jitsubruin wrote:I picked D initially too but then changed it to E for question 13. I'll have to review the question more and figure why I chose E and why D is truly right. I agree with the ambiguous nature of the question.

For 16, lines 28-31 and lines 18-20 helped me pick the right answer. The author basically says that the laws quest for truth consists of locating an objective description... but the next sentence says that there is no such thing as the neutral, objective observer. I took that one step further and inferred that since there is no objective observer, there is no objective description. Therefore, a hunt for an imaginary animal seems most similar. The search for a valuable stone among worthless stone, at least in my mind, implies that this valuable stone exists.

I don't think the author meant "If find truth -> Objectivism" though... I think the author said other people thought that. If, in fact, the author said "If find truth -> Objectivism", then yes, "Not objective -> never find truth".

Not sure if I understand. I believe the question wasn't asking about the author's opinion but rather "those who reject objectivism".

I didn't really think of this question in conditional statements either. I think the author is saying that there is no "objective truth" not that there is no truth. So, at least in mind, your conditionals don't make sense to me. But I get my ass kicked by the LSAT all the time, so don't take my word for it