Q24

[morgansea]

Can someone explain why answer A isn't the correct choice? Isn't the answer straight out of lines 20-23 of the passage?

[jasonxu89]

I got this wrong either. I could not find where the passage explicitly says that objectivism is faulty. But the entire second paragraph seems to elaborates on why objectivism is not desirable from a subjectivist's point of view. And from "knowledge, they argue, relies on the data of experience, which includes subjective experience. line 24,25," we can infer B is correct.

That's my understanding of this question.

[ldanny24]

I think I can give this one a go.

If you look closely at the stem, its basically saying, "what is an argument the subjectivist use against objectivism?"

Now the answer will be found in paragraph 2 not in the beginning part, but in the end. The reason why A is wrong is because Objectivism resting on evidence that conflicts with the data of intropsection isn't an argument. Lines 20-23 says they aren't persuaded by appeals to science when such appeals conflict with data...Not being persuaded by something is not the same as that thing being used as an argument.

B on the other hand can be found in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph whereby if we equate reduce and restrict its a very provable answer.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation ldanny24!

[nflamel69]

I feel the degree is what makes A wrong. "rest on evidence " is wayy too strong. sure, there might be times where the data conflict with the subjectivist point of view like the passage suggested, but rest on? nope

[gplaya123]

I was struggling with this one but
i guess everyone is on the same page.

it's all about
A vs B.
Now, many people probably have chosen A is because they unconsciously equivocated science with objectivism.
The first part of the second P is where A is derived. Yet, it's not correctly derived. If you carefully read it, the first part says something about philosophers not being persuaded by the way scientists do things. Thus, it is not about objectivism but about science itself. the word "objectivism" was not even mentioned in it.

B is the answer, which comes from the last part of second P, where it questions why should philosophers ally with scientists who reduce stuff that only can be discerned objectively?
Now, it's rather a rhetorical question, where it implies and foreshadows about the next paragraph: the reason Phil and Science aren't compatible is due to this REDUCTION using objectivism.
Hope this helps

[Mab6q]

The LSAT with its vicious detail creep.

[hnadgauda]

Prephrase: subjectivists can't accept the objectivists' views because they don't accept data gathered from experience (subjective data) and because the appeals to science conflicts with the data gathered from introspection.

A: This is tempting. But let's look at the question. It's asking us why don't subjectivists like objectivism. Right at lines 20-23, it straight up says subjectivists don't like objectivism when appeals to science don't accept the data of introspection! But why do subjectivists not like objectivism when this happens? Because philosophy needs to include the data of experience which is subjective and objectivism doesn't allow that.
B: This is the correct answer.
C: No; the objectivists are philosophers who like the objective approaches of science.
D: Totally out of scope. We aren't talking about scientific data at all.
E: No; objectivists and subjectivists are grappling with the same questions, just with different kinds of data!