Passage Discussion

[Laura Damone]

Scale
The humanities people that dis the sciences vs. the science people that dis the humanities.

Author's VP/Purpose
The humanities vs. science thing is based on fundamental misconceptions about both fields. If we correct the misunderstandings, we can combine humanities and science in a way that is fruitful for humanity.

Important Lines (usually Author's view)
Lines 5-9 and 53-56: The author's main point.

Paragraph 1
Purpose: Present the humanities vs. science debate and assert that it rests on correctable misunderstandings.

Paragraph 2
Purpose: Present the humanities side. Note the strong degree of opinion ("caricature" in line 14, and "ignorant" in line 15) and the example in lines 15-17).

Paragraph 3
Purpose: Present the science side. Note the strong degree of opinion ("useless" in line 29).

Paragraph 4
Purpose: Reconcile the two sides. Note the term "scientific humanism" in line 38, the similarity between science and the arts expressed in lines 40-44, and the predictions for reconciliation in likens 50-56.

Takeaway/Pattern: Clarifying a misconception is a common theme in RC. Often that theme manifests in passages that are defending an author or artist from criticism based on a mischaractrerization of their work. In this passage, though, the misconceptions are the source of a debate our author thinks shouldn't be happening at all, and clarifying the misconceptions is the path to reconciliation: another common thread in LSAT RC.


#officialexplanation

[SameekshaM239]

For the scale, I thought it was more: The misconceptions about science and humanities being incompatible vs They are compatible/stronger together, shown through scientific humanism. Let me know if this makes sense!

[BrooksD321]

For the scale, I thought it was more: The misconceptions about science and humanities being incompatible vs They are compatible/stronger together, shown through scientific humanism. Let me know if this makes sense!

I arrived at that interpretation as well. Please advise on the above.

[smiller]

For the scale, I thought it was more: The misconceptions about science and humanities being incompatible vs They are compatible/stronger together, shown through scientific humanism. Let me know if this makes sense!

I arrived at that interpretation as well. Please advise on the above.

That's definitely a useful way to view the scale in this passage. It allows us to put the author cleanly on one side of the scale, the "scientific humanist" side. I personally like doing it that way.

However, in a passage like this, where there is a strong debate between two parties and the author takes an alternative or middle view, Laura's way of describing the scale works really well for some people. If we were to draw a picture of this scale, "some humanists" would be on one side and "some scientists" would be on the other, with the author in the middle.

There's definitely room for personal preference when conceptualizing the scale for this type of passage. The crucial thing is to recognize that the author expresses a clear opinion in this passage. We need to keep that in our big-picture understanding of the passage, either by placing the author on one side of the scale or by stating the Author's Viewpoint/Purpose as Laura did.