Reading Comprehension

PT18 · S3 · P2 · Q11 Is Science Objective

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

A recent generation of historians of science, far from portraying accepted scientific views as objectively accurate reflections of a natural world, explain the acceptance of such views in terms of the ideological biases of certain influential scientists or the institutional and rhetorical power such scientists wield.

Topic

Scientific truth's relationship to objective reality

Framework

Present Debate / Challenge a Position

Main Point

C'mon, fools. Y'all know that some scientific truths are objective facts of the world (like H20 or genetics). Sure, it's complicated and roundabout how we discover these truths (lots of mistakes along the way) and it's influenced in interesting ways by power structures and ideologies, but stop playin' like scientific truths are just subjective opinions.

Summary

P1 - Describes 2 points of view (pushes back against one)

We learn what "historians of science" mindset is -- the accepted scientific views we have aren't because they accurately describe objective reality, they're because certain scientists and organizations are influential enough to get other scientists to accept these views.

"Philosophers of science" have a related mindset -- scientific views aren't what they are because they align with objective reality, they're the result of creative scientists inventing things in their minds, with other scientists trying to falsify them.

In the final sentence, the author uses the negative attitude word "extremism", telling us that the author is against historians of science (and probably not a fan of philosophers of science).

P2 - Author sternly rebukes this crap

The author ain't having it. H20 is not the creative invention of a scientist. It's objective reality.

P3 - Author makes some friendly concessions to the historians / philosophers

Hey, philosophers, I feel you --- science takes such a circuitous path to get to the truth (with lots of mistakes and inaccuracies) that it probably feels like a bunch of random conjectures.

Hey, historians, cool stuff --- you've uncovered some interesting insights about how influence / power structures affect which truths become accepted when.

P4 - But, again, don't go runnin' 'round town speakin' that nonsense again

The author reminds these two groups of how cockamamie it is to suggest that scientific truth isn't tethered to objective reality in some crucial way, and she suggests how historians could continue doing their good stuff without venturing into this dumb stuff.

11.

The use of the words “any serious-minded and informed person” (highlighted passage) serves which one of the following functions in the context of the passage?

to satirize chronologically earlier notions
Out of Scope: earlier notions
The author is satirizing or clowning the views in the 1st paragraph (that scientific truths are just opinions with no essential correspondence to the natural world). She isn't satirizing "earlier notions about the composition of water". We never talked about any earlier notions.
2% picked this
to reinforce a previously stated
Too Narrow: philosophers of science
We think that this quote is meant as a slam against the views in the first paragraph, which were offered by both philosophers of science and historians of science (the latter seemingly being the more important one). So it's weird that this answer is focusing specifically on philosophers of science. Is there a previously stated opinion about them? Sort of. The sentence weren't being asked about seems to reinforce the previously stated opinion at the outset of the 2nd paragraph: it is deeply implausible to reject the idea that scientific views are objective reflections of the world. Was that a claim about philosophers of science? No, not specifically. Certain philosophers of science would be targeted by that statement, but so would some historians of science as well as anyone else making that sort of claim. Since there's no "previously stated opinion about philosophers of science" to reinforce, we can't abide by this answer's language.
10% picked this
to suggest the author’s reservations
Opposite
The author is defending the traditional belief, not expressing reservations about it. The author thinks that people attacking the traditional belief are fools, and that serious and informed people still believe the traditional belief.
6% picked this
to anticipate objections from someone
Opposite
In this final sentence, the author is anticipating objections from the historians/philosophers of science who challenge the traditional belief. The author had just said "We now know that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen and that parents each contribute 1/2 of their children's complement of genes". Someone from the 1st paragraph might object, "Wait a sec! These statements are not factual descriptions of the world. They will inevitably be falsified". The author is saying, I don't think that any serious-minded / informed person (the type who would argue for an objectively accurate description of the world) would say this. The author doesn't anticipate that we'd ever hear this sort of objection from someone who believes in objectively accurate descriptions of the world.
7% picked this
Correct
to discredit someone who would
Why this is right
This opening verb is definitely the closest thing we're getting to the idea of "to trash / to clown / to disparage the point of view from the 1st paragraph". The people in the 1st paragraph were suggesting that certain scientific assertions don't factually describe reality. And the author is saying, "I can't think of any serious-minded and informed person who would think that way" when it comes to such accepted truths as the molecular composition of water / genetic composition of offspring.
Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
75% 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