Q10

[bghose]

Would appreciate if someone can weigh in on how they arrived at the right answer, by also providing the reference to the lines in the passage providing the necessary support.

[ohthatpatrick]

This question is essentially asking, "What's the 3rd paragraph good for (in relation to the whole passage)?"

This is where we would consult our Passage Map (the quick little structural recipe we decide upon after we've read a passage).

P1 - introduces Historians of Science POV (point-of-view) and suggests the author has a problem with its 'extremism'.

P2 - Clearly articulates that the author has a problem with the Historians' POV

P3 - Author concedes a lot of points ... i.e. the author lists the ways in which he would agree with the Historians' POV

P4 - Author reiterates criticism of POV while suggesting a modified approach for the Historians to take.

So answering this question first in my own words, I would be expecting something like "in the 3rd paragraph, the author is concerned with explaining the sense in which the Historians are correct".

(A) There are no conflicting explanations within the 3rd paragraph. This is almost tempting, though, because the fact that the author is essentially making points that go along with the Historians conflicts , in a sense, with the fact that the author ultimately disagrees with them. But the 3rd paragraph doesn't contain that conflict, and as the 4th paragraph indicates, it's not really a conflict at all. You can agree to everything said in the 3rd paragraph while still rejecting the extreme conclusions reached by the Historians.

(B) This sounds more like the end of the 4th paragraph.

(C) I'd keep it. "Qualifying an idea" means backpeddling a little and stating some exceptions to your original idea, narrowing the scope of it, or providing the specific context in which it applies.

For example
Opinion: Fruit is my favorite type of food.
Qualified opinion: Well, other than bananas, that is.
Qualified opinion: Although I do agree that savory meats are incredibly delicious.

Since the author's original opinion is "the Historians' are wrong", the 3rd paragraph is qualifying that opinion somewhat by saying, "well, they're right to say X, Y, and Z."

(D) There are no answers here. And I'm not sure what the question was.

(E) The author is not attacking the assumptions underlying the Historians' beliefs. By contrast, the author is agreeing with the assumptions underlying the Historians' beliefs. This is leading us to P4, in which the author says, "you can accept these assumptions without reaching their stupid conclusion".

It's harder to provide specific line references for Big Picture questions, because they are testing a synthesis of several points as well as the function of the passage as a whole.

If you think about what function the 3rd paragraph serves in the whole passage, hopefully you would come up with "the author takes a sec to acknowledge the ways in which he agrees with the historians". (C), while tough wording, is the best match for that we have.

If you re-read the 3rd paragraph, you see lots of "conceding a point to my opponent" phrases such as
it's not by any means X
We certainly need to get beyond X
Philosophers of Science are quite right to say Y
Nor would I deny that Z
Indeed, ____

When LSAT authors say things like "while I grant that ___", "naturally, ____ is true", they're setting you up ultimately for a but/yet/however that says "even though I accept the previous points, I do not accept this last idea".

Hope this helps.