Why is E correct?
By process of elimination I narrowed it down to B or E, and with limited time left I decided that it seemed to dismiss the neo-Lamackarian method rather than "indicate the nature of the evidence". Thank you!
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- BethanyB813
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 1
- Joined: April 11th, 2017
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3806
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q24
Usually, the correct answer to a "Purpose of a paragraph" question tracks pretty closely to the topic sentence.
In this case, though, the topic sentence is a bit misleading. It looks like the author is ready to "But/yet/however" himself into a full-on rebuttal against Steele, but it's actually a pretty neutral paragraph.
The author is really just asking, neutrally, "Is there any empirical evidence to back up Steele's hypothesis?"
48-51: They claim ___
51-55: They claim ___
55-end: Other biologists aren't convinced. They suggest _____
The fact that the AUTHOR doesn't respond -- she just lets other scientists respond -- means that the author is staying out of the debate, although it would be fair to speculate that the author is not entirely convinced yet of Steele's hypothesis.
(A) The paragraph barely presents objections. Only the last sentence would qualify.
(B) "Dismiss" is way too strong.
(C) No one talks about how to revise neo-Lamarckian.
(D) There are no suggestions for future research.
(E) Yes, the author asks "what evidence exists?", tells us what evidence exists, and then gives us a parting thought that debate still continues.
In a way, (E) still lives up to the formula that "Purpose of a Paragraph" tracks pretty closely to the topic sentence. The question "Does it ever actually occur?" is really asking "Is there any empirical evidence of this phenomenon?"
For (B), like for so many answers in RC, it's wrong because it's too strong.
In this case, though, the topic sentence is a bit misleading. It looks like the author is ready to "But/yet/however" himself into a full-on rebuttal against Steele, but it's actually a pretty neutral paragraph.
The author is really just asking, neutrally, "Is there any empirical evidence to back up Steele's hypothesis?"
48-51: They claim ___
51-55: They claim ___
55-end: Other biologists aren't convinced. They suggest _____
The fact that the AUTHOR doesn't respond -- she just lets other scientists respond -- means that the author is staying out of the debate, although it would be fair to speculate that the author is not entirely convinced yet of Steele's hypothesis.
(A) The paragraph barely presents objections. Only the last sentence would qualify.
(B) "Dismiss" is way too strong.
(C) No one talks about how to revise neo-Lamarckian.
(D) There are no suggestions for future research.
(E) Yes, the author asks "what evidence exists?", tells us what evidence exists, and then gives us a parting thought that debate still continues.
In a way, (E) still lives up to the formula that "Purpose of a Paragraph" tracks pretty closely to the topic sentence. The question "Does it ever actually occur?" is really asking "Is there any empirical evidence of this phenomenon?"
For (B), like for so many answers in RC, it's wrong because it's too strong.
2 posts Page 1 of 1