Theory of the Mind

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct76% picked this

   contrast the traditional approach to studying the mind with the approach

   Why this is right

   This looks good! It seems to resonate with the big themes of the first two sentences. Those sentences are building this distinction between a subjective approach and an objective approach (the passage hasn't used that term 'objective' yet, but it's common sense that objective is the logical opposite of subjective). If these philosophers don't want to do subjective, then their only other option is objective. These philosophers admire the scientific fields of psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science, because those fields presumably concern themselves more with objective, observable, hard data. The sentence about the work of scientists definitely reiterates that contrast: "Scientists do not concern themselves with subjective data perceivable only to a particular individual; scientists purse hard data which is externally observable."

   Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   76%
2. B

   Too Narrow2% picked this

   argue that the attempt to describe the sensation of pain should be done without reference to any

   Too Narrow: pain Wrong POV: not the author's voice The sentence about scientists is not specifically related to "pain". Pain and anger were two examples of sensations brought up in the previous sentence, but the sentence about scientists is no more about pain than it is about anger, and it's no more about those two sensations than it is about any sensation. Furthermore, the sentence about scientists is presenting the opinion of these philosophers. Meanwhile, this answer choice claims that the sentence about scientists is there so that the author can "argue" something.

   2%
3. C

   Out of Scope: should3% picked this

   explain why scientists should not concern themselves with describing how a phenomenon feels

   Again, this answer accuses this sentence about scientists to be advancing the author's agenda. Supposedly, it's helping the author to explain why scientists should not concern themselves with internal sensations. The author's voice hasn't entered the passage yet. The first few sentences are presenting the point of view of the objectivist philosophers, and the sentence about scientists is reporting to the reader what these philosophers say about scientists. At no point in the passage ever take the side of the objectivists and say that "scientists (and philosophers) should not be concerning themselves with internal feelings. In fact, the author presents the subjectivist side of the debate respectfully, as though it also has merit. Ultimately, the author wants these two sides to recognize that they each have a valid perspective.

   3%
4. D

   Out of Scope3% picked this

   criticize subjectivists for thinking there is little to be gained from studying

   Out of Scope: criticized subjectivists Out of Scope: little to be gained Nowhere in the passage do subjectivists ever say "there is little to be gained from studying the mind scientifically". Subjectivists are saying, "we shouldn't only study it scientifically. We should allow for the fact that subjective experience is another source of knowledge, and when the data gathered by introspection conflicts with science, we shouldn't necessarily assume that science is correct." Since the subjectivists never made that claim, the author can't possibly be criticizing it (nor does the author really criticize either side for anything besides a failure to have genuine communication with the other side).

   3%
5. E

   Unsupported Causal Claim15% picked this

   clarify why the objectivists’ approach has been successful in disciplines such as chemistry,

   The sentence following our detail sentence does indeed attest to the success that the objective approach has had in disciplines such as chemistry, biology, and physics. But our author isn't trying in the first paragraph to clarify why the objectivists have been successful. Our author's only goal in the first paragraph is to summarize the point of view of objectivist philosophers. The sentence about the scientists is saying that objectivist philosophers support their preferred approach to the mind by pointing to the fact that scientists tend to eschew subjective data and pursue objective data. The sentence about the success of scientists in fields like chem / bio / phys is to set up the objectivists philosophers' claim that an objective approach would be similarly successful in studying the mind. The two sentences are essentially saying, "Scientists don't worry about subjective data. They worry about objective data. This objective approach has been very successful in these three fields." Does that first sentence explain why the objective approach has been successful? No. You have one sentence establishing a preference and another sentence establishing success, but there's no explanation of why the preference contributed to the success. If we say, "Angela does not like to study early in the morning; instead she studies late at night. Her late night studying has been successful at improving her score on the LSAT", have we "clarified why late night studying has been successful"? Nope.

   15%