#22 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[Krwill]

I had difficulty picking up on the author's attitude for this passage. I knew it was not negative and knew it had to be D or E but selected E instead and based my the last sentence stating "Indeed it is like not even a unique event" and the fact that Carroll and Chen purported this as well.

[Jay Donnell]

Hi Krwill!

This presents one of many examples in the RC canon where we have to keep in perspective the original source of these passages. The authors of the RC passages are academics, and write with a level of logical force that becomes easy to support and hard to counter-argue.

In the entirety of the LSAT history, I can't recall of an RC author ever displaying an attitude of a "zealous proponent." When faced with a situation like this, which do you think would be the safer bet for author's perspective? Keep in mind, these are extremely intelligent people who make concerted efforts not to put themselves in a position to be proven wrong with new evidence.

A) Tempered optimism
B) Unrestrained enthusiasm

Clearly, A would be the better choice to ascribe to a rational, intelligent source.

In this case, D is a far better choice than E when the author's role/perspective is fully taken into context.

It's true that the author in this passage clearly agrees with Carroll and Chen, but there would have to be a huge jump in language throughout the passage to allow us to go as far as 'zealous.'

Hope that helps!

[jacoba1119]

The Bibles tell us not to ignore strong language. Even though E is much stronger than D, how can you simply rule out E because of that difference in strength? The last paragraph of the passage indicates that the author is giving their own view (the other times all findings and interpretations are prefaced by "Carroll and Chen"). If the author is now giving their own view, how could they merely be a "reporter?"

[Adam Tyson]

We aren't ignoring the strong language in answer E, jacoba1119 - we're saying that the passage lacks support for it. In order to pick an answer as strong as that one, you need strong evidence. Here, we would need to see our author being not academic and reasonable, but more like a cheerleader arguing in favor of Carroll and Chen. We might be able to pick such an answer if our author had said things like "this is clearly the correct view and should be treated with complete deference" or "this must be the position that we take, rejecting all others", but he makes no such powerful statements.

Strong language like "zealous" is great when you are trying to justify a conclusion, or strengthen or weaken an argument. In a question that fits into the "prove" family, where we pick answers based solely on the facts presented in the text, strong language is deserving of suspicion, and should only be selected if sufficiently powerful evidence in the text backs it up. Answer E here lacks support from the passage, and that's why it has to be a loser. Not ignored - eliminated because it is not supported.

[Tarte au chocolate]

Hi,

can you explain what "sympathetic" in choice D means here?

thx!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Tarte au chocolate!

"Sympathetic" in this case basically just means "in agreement with." Since the author does not provide any criticism of Carroll and Chen's theory, we can infer that the author generally agrees with their views.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[Aileeeeeee]

Hi,
I down to A and D and I choose D which is correct answer but I am not sure why the A is incorrect. Is it too strong??

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Aileeeeeee!

Answer choice (A) is definitely too strong, but it's also too strong in the wrong direction. An "adversary" is someone who is opposed to a position. If the author was an "ardent adversary" of Carroll and Chen's theory, that means that they would be strongly against the theory. The author presents no arguments against Carroll and Chen's theory so we cannot say that this author is even somewhat opposed to the theory. Thus, the author is not taking the stance of an "adversary," ardent or otherwise.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey