Reading Comprehension

PT115 · S1 · P4 · Q22 Theory of the Mind

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Some of the philosophers find the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind outdated and ineffectual.

Topic

The debate between subjective and objective approaches to studying the mind.

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

Philosophers clash over whether to study the mind through subjective introspection or objective scientific methods, but genuine progress in the debate will require evaluating the authority and limitations of both perspectives—possibly leading to new ways of understanding the mind. The Most Valuable Sentence is at the end of the final paragraph:

P1: Introduction to Objectivist View

A group of philosophers think the old approach of describing inner feelings (like pain or anger) is outdated; they argue scientific, externally observable data is far more reliable and effective for understanding the mind, just as it is for other sciences.

P2: The Subjectivist Rebuttal

Subjectivist philosophers push back, arguing that knowledge must include subjective experience and introspection, and question why only objective data should "count."

P3: Lack of Common Ground

The passage suggests these two approaches can't easily reconcile, and the main problem is that the sides don't share enough foundational beliefs to make productive dialogue possible.

22.

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

It cannot be overcome because
Too Strong: cannot be overcome
Although the author is despondent about the current lack of communication, she says at the beginning of the 3rd, on the face of it, it seems unlikely that these two approaches could be reconciled That's not as strong as this answer, which is 100% pessimistic. Furthermore, the last paragraph proposes ways for them to overcome the impasse, so clearly the author has hopes it can be overcome.
6% picked this
Correct
It is resolvable only if
Why this is right
In the second to last sentence of the 3rd paragraph, it says this: For reasoned discourse to occur, there must be shared assumptions or beliefs. Starting from radically divergent perspectives, they lack a common context in which to consider evidence presented from each other's perspectives. That's a strong match for the language in this answer choice. For reasoned discourse to occur it is resolvable there must be only if shared assumptions or beliefs / common context common ground from which to assess competing conceptions of evidence in which to consider evidence presented from each other's perspectives Also helping us to like this answer is the fact that we're supporting this answer with the sentence that is immediately connected to the keyword clue. "current impasse" pointed us to "present debate" in the preceding sentence of the 3rd paragraph.
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
79% picked this
It is unavoidable unless both
Too Strong: accurate requires both
We can't find anywhere in the passage where the author says something as strong as "accurate understanding of the mind requires both types". This kind of claim would indicate that the author already has a very strong idea that an accurate understanding of the world definitely needs subjectivity and objectivity. This author isn't inserting her own opinions on the matter of "how should the universe be understood?" She's reporting on the impasse between these two schools of philosophy and playing the role of mediator to try to get them talking again.
5% picked this
It is based on an
Too Strong: easily correctable
Our author definitely thinks the situation could be correctable, because she proposes possible ways to correct it in the final paragraph. But easily correctable? This goes against the first line of the 3rd paragraph, in which she's saying, "It looks pretty hopeless to reconcile these two perspectives, on the face of it." The investigation she calls for in the 5th paragraph is what she hopes would correct the impasse, but it sounds like it would be a fairly tricky conversation / lengthy investigation. We just can't support the notion that it will be easily fixed.
1% picked this
It will prevent further progress
Too Strong: prevent further progress
The author never says that "this impasse will halt us; we'll have to find new ways of gaining knowledge". This answer is trying to play off a misunderstanding of the final sentence of the passage, in which the author is saying, "maybe we'll discover new forms of knowledge about how the mind works". But nothing here is as harsh as saying "further progress is prevented until we make those discoveries".
8% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free