Q25 - Some people mistakenly believe

[noah]

In this question we're searching for an example that exemplifies the principle illustrated by the stimulus. First step, figure out the principle.

Here it's the idea that some information is helpful in learning about the past, even though there are limitations to how helpful that information is as you try to learn about older periods.

Since it's a principle, we may need a more abstract version such as "we can learn some things from a source of information, but there are limitations to how deep we can go with that topic with that information."

(A) has the same idea underneath it: we (or astronomers) can learn about the early years of our solar system, even though we can't learn that much about earlier events (the origin).

(B) is tempting because it includes a caveat to something being useful, however it focuses on a breakdown in utility when the information is studied more, not when we try to use that information to dig deeper into some topic (i.e. looking at older periods).

(C) is missing the increase in depth/temporal distance of what is being studied, instead it introduces a new factor, one's personal distance from something. If we fudge it and allow "farther" to cover that distance issue, we still have the shift from understanding to appreciating.

(D) is missing the caveat.

(E) is missing the caveat, it only has an improvement.


#officialexplanation

[netkorea06]

How is 'present' similar to'origin'? Aren't they basically the opposite?

[farhadshekib]

How is 'present' similar to'origin'? Aren't they basically the opposite?

You have to look at the bigger picture, as this is a principle question.

Let's compare the principle to the correct answer.

Principle:

(i) we can learn about the distant past even though we don't have direct access to it.

Astronomers are often able to draw inferences (or learn) about the earlier years of the solar systems by using recently collected data.


This makes it clear that astronomers can learn about the distant past (i.e. the solar system) even though they don't have direct access to it (i.e. learn on the basis of recently collected data).

(ii) More distant the period = less useful the study

Astronomers have been able to infer comparatively little about the origin of our solar system.

This suggests that the study is not perfect. The more distant the period (i.e. origin of our solar system) = less useful (i.e. infer "comparatively little")

[markdanielsalvador]

I see why this (A) is correct, but I think some of the phrasing used is a little misleading. For example, the phrase "study of the present" can be taken to mean "study of today's world" or "study of modern times."

It makes sense when you take "study of the present" to mean "the current study of recently obtained clues." I get it now, as it refers to, in the stimulus, the study of "clues about a given region," and in the correct answer, the study of "recently collected data."

I would speculate that most people are going to read that phrase and come up with the former interpretation. Even if you understand the principle correctly, it's still hard to see it fully in place in the correct answer, since it never says that the attempts at researching the origin of the solar system were even based on the same data as the successful research.

[zainrizvi]

What is the principle being illustrated here? The direct, "more distant period, less useful" statement, or do we have to come up with a more general principle on our own?

[zainrizvi]

I'm also confused by how initially the principle was stated as

Here it's the idea that some sort of information is helpful in learning about something, even though there are limitations.

But then the process you use to eliminate (B) and (C) don't draw in from the principle. They are more just comparing the stimulus to the choices...

[noah]

I'm also confused by how initially the principle was stated as

Here it's the idea that some sort of information is helpful in learning about something, even though there are limitations.

But then the process you use to eliminate (B) and (C) don't draw in from the principle. They are more just comparing the stimulus to the choices...

Good critiques. I went back and edited my explanation to clean it up a bit. Apparently I'm older and wiser now. (or, perhaps I benefited from your comments!)

[nflamel69]

Noah,

On choice C, when they say farther, I took it as in a temporal sense, but i still eliminated it on the basis it changed from understanding to appreciate, is that a good basis? Also, is it referring to distance or temporal? thanks

[noah]

Noah,

On choice C, when they say farther, I took it as in a temporal sense, but i still eliminated it on the basis it changed from understanding to appreciate, is that a good basis? Also, is it referring to distance or temporal? thanks

Good reason to eliminate.

"Farther" is not enough to match the distance referenced in the stimulus. The stimulus is about how far away the source of information is from today. (C) is about how different it is from how we think.

[shirando21]

Noah,

On choice C, when they say farther, I took it as in a temporal sense, but i still eliminated it on the basis it changed from understanding to appreciate, is that a good basis? Also, is it referring to distance or temporal? thanks

Good reason to eliminate.

"Farther" is not enough to match the distance referenced in the stimulus. The stimulus is about how far away the source of information is from today. (C) is about how different it is from how we think.

I understand why C is incorrect, but how does A show that the more distant period we are studying is , the less useful the study of the present becomes?

[syousif3]

I'm confused about A as well because everything about 'however' is not included

[noah]

To answer the last two posts, (A) is about "earlier years" which are quite distant. And, that same answer includes the idea that the "recently collected data" isn't that useful -- covering the "however" part.

Tell me if there are still some questions about this.

[shirando21]

Thanks, problem solved!

[mattmkaras]

I see why this (A) is correct, but I think some of the phrasing used is a little misleading. For example, the phrase "study of the present" can be taken to mean "study of today's world" or "study of modern times."

It makes sense when you take "study of the present" to mean "the current study of recently obtained clues." I get it now, as it refers to, in the stimulus, the study of "clues about a given region," and in the correct answer, the study of "recently collected data."

I would speculate that most people are going to read that phrase and come up with the former interpretation. Even if you understand the principle correctly, it's still hard to see it fully in place in the correct answer, since it never says that the attempts at researching the origin of the solar system were even based on the same data as the successful research.

I totally agree with what was said here (indeed I pursued the first interpretation above). What prevents us from having this first-mentioned interpretation? Or perhaps, what makes the choice between these interpretations irrelevant to the selection of the correct answer?

[phoebster21]

Noah,

On choice C, when they say farther, I took it as in a temporal sense, but i still eliminated it on the basis it changed from understanding to appreciate, is that a good basis? Also, is it referring to distance or temporal? thanks

Farther referring to your world view. It would be like me, a female american college student, trying to read texts from an Ethiopian Royal Prince, who could in theory be alive currently. It's our world views that are far apart, not necessarily our points of existence. ALSO, good CATCH on the equivocation between understanding and appreciation!

[visconzain]

Honestly, I still don't get how A is right. B sounded like it made more sense to me. I wish someone will explain the concept of A being right better.

[tommywallach]

Noah's original explanation (top post) is the correct one. (B) makes it so that a method breaks down when used more, not that it doesn't work when used to go deeper.

Think of it this way. A blender could break down after we use it for 10 more hours, or it could break down when I try to blend something more difficult to blend. (A) represents the second example (our principle), while (B) represents the former.

-t

[andrewgong01]

I wasn't sure if a temporal element was needed for the correct answer choice since distance can come in other form.

Would "C" have been correct if it had said "To understand a text one needs to adopt the other person's world views. However, the more culturally distant/ world view different a person is from the person whom he is studying the less useful studying through the perspective of the other culture/world view due to the inability to understand radically different perspectives/ beliefs? Here, there is no temporal issue but it does still get across the broad principle, namely, studying something through a new lens can be useful but the harder it is for us to adopt the new lens the less efficacious the new lens is in studying the topic. In other words, does the LSAT put great weight as temporal being a distinct necessary element that should be replicated in matching + principle example questions or can we use "distant" more figuratively on the LSAT

[ohthatpatrick]

You could probably fudge "distance" as a figurative concept, if there weren't a superior temporal example being offered.

The first sentence of (C) concerns me, since I don't remember any harsh necessary rule in the original paragraph.

[BobS315]

I think that the stimulus questions the external use (per accidens) of a method, while the answer choices B and C questions the internal use or gain (per se) from a method. The blender example is quite useful in explaining this.