Reading Comprehension

PT115 · S1 · P4 · Q28 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Some of the philosophers find the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind outdated and ineffectual.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A group of philosophers think the old approach of describing inner feelings (like pain or anger) is outdated; they argue scientific, externally observable data is far more reliable and effective for understanding the mind, just as it is for other sciences.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.

28.

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?

  1. a debate among investigators attempting

    Bad Match #2

    We have a debate, but we don't seem to have different "holy books". There's just conflicting evidence at the scene, but it's not like one of the points of view in the debate is assigned to fingerprints and the other point of view is assigned to DNA evidence. We don't have a way of saying that "the two sides in the debate can't resolve the situation, because they don't have a shared set of facts." Here it's more like they can't resolve the debate because their shared set of facts is inherently contradictory.

    4% picked this

  2. a debate among jurors attempting

    Bad Match #2

    This is more or less the same as (A). The debate among jurors isn't stalling out because the jurors lack a shared set of facts / evidence. It's stalling out because their shared set of facts / evidence involves conflicting accounts.

    14% picked this

  3. a debate between two archaeologists

    Bad Match #2

    This has the intractable debate part of #1, but again we're not matching up well with the idea that the two people debating are relying on entirely distinct types of evidence. In fact, in this case, both parties are lacking any evidence.

    15% picked this

  4. a debate between two museum

    Bad Match #2

    This is the same as (A) and (B). The people debating are not pulling from two separate sources of evidence. They are making use of the same sources of evidence, and the evidence sends mixed signals.

    3% picked this

  5. Correct

    a debate between two historians

    Why this is right

    Here we have a debate that is not resolving because the two people debating are pulling from two different sources of evidence (different types of historical data). This was the only answer where the people involved in the debate were each relying on their own preferred source of data. It is possible to read this answer to be saying, "Both historians looked at different types of historical data and drew conflicting conclusions about some event", which would not match what we're looking for. But this answer has an easier time being read in the way we want to in order to match it up with the 4th paragraph -- "Historian A looked at historical data of type X, while historian B looked at historical data of type Y, and this is why they can't agree about Event Z."

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

    65% 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