#5 - Global Reference, Author's Perspective, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14060)

The correct answer choice is (A)

This question asks us to select the two word phrase that most accurately describes the Author’s view of the strict constructionist Darwinians’ position. Generally, we can say that the Author views their arguments negatively, and so we can eliminate any answer choice that is positive in nature. Further, the Author was quite critical of the strict constructionist Darwinians, as seen by the Author’s word choice, especially in the first paragraph, e.g., “self-proclaimed”, “reducing”, “assert”.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice because it properly captures the Author’s sharp disagreement with the position taken by the strict constructionist Darwinians.

Answer choice (B): While this answer choice expresses a negative view, it is not worded strongly enough to accurately describe the Author’s stance.

Answer choice (C): The Author was neither neutral nor open-minded when it came to the strict constructionist view. As discussed in the prephrase, the Author’s word choice indicates—from the very beginning of the passage—stern opposition to the strict constructionists.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because the Author explicitly and repeatedly disagrees with the strict constructionist view.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice is the polar opposite of the Author’s stance toward the strict constructionist Darwinians.

[LustingFor!L]

Why is answer choice A (emphatic disagreement) a better selection than answer choice than B (mild disapproval). I thought the language in answer choice A was too strong.

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, Lusting, and a good one it is. What do we do when none of the answers are exactly what we want or prephrased? That's a problem that we all face throughout the test. Typically the answer lies in the text, and especially in RC we need to go back to that text to find support for our answer.

Here, the author tells us that he disagrees with the strict construction folks a few times. Around line 19, for example, he says that nature is full of examples of adaptations that are not about natural selection. He goes on in subsequent lines to show that some mutations are completely neutral. Later, around line 36, he adds evidence from paleontology about mass extinctions, further attacking the position of the strict constructionists. Finally, he gets in the last word by telling us that some adaptations are merely dumb luck.

All of this adds up to much more than "mild disapproval". I would call it something like "fundamental rejection".

What would "mild disapproval" look like? Milder. Something like "this hasn't been well thought out and needs further study". Maybe "while this is a good theory, it seems somewhat incomplete." How about "I suppose they have a point, but I don't like it very much."

While our author was academic in his approach and wasn't angry or cruel in his response to the strict constructionist theory, he still came out with a fairly emphatic disagreement with them. In short, he says "no, they are wrong." The text does much more to support answer A than answer B, and so that makes A the best answer of the bunch.

I hope that helped. When in doubt, look to the text. If you cannot find support for a particular answer choice, don't pick it, and ultimately go with the best answer even if you don't love it.

Good luck!

[BigDogLittleBark]

Hi there. Is it fair to say that since the author did give two examples of support against the strict constructionist's view that shows the author empathetically disagrees with their view?

[atierney]

Hello Big Dog (and fighter, I guess, right?),

I can't necessarily endorse the formulation of a strict rule based on "counting the examples" the author provides against a certain position to render the author's position in the "emphatic disagreement" category. What I can say however, is that these examples serve to definitively configure his viewpoint in the negative direction, and as such, a similarly situated negative answer choice is likely to be correct, generally speaking, on the exam. Thus, here, where you have C, D, and E effectively ruled out on this basis, I think that a fair way to go even further in narrowing down process would be to incorporate the idea of distinct negativity, on the basis of the examples and the utter absence of any positive considerations otherwise, without necessarily relying on the rule of "a lot of examples equals emphasis per se." Although, often, as I stated, the answer choices work themselves out in such a way such that it really becomes a moot point as to the rule so used.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.

[blaisebayno]

Hi, can someone tell me what parts of the passage communicate emphatic disagreement? I see no extreme words. I chose mild disapproval because although there is disagreement, it is is never articulated emphatically.

[Adam Tyson]

See my explanation earlier in this thread, blaisebayno. It's more of a cumulative effect rather than any one single reference.