#26 - Purpose

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=11562)

The correct answer choice is (C)

The primary purpose of this paragraph is roughly prephrased in our discussion of the main point from our VIEWSTAMP analysis: the author wishes to present a new perspective on the relationships between pathogens and their hosts, and on the relationship between a pathogen’s mode of transmission and its virulence. Correct answer choice (C) provides the best synopsis of the author’s purpose, to present the prevailing understanding of host-parasite relations, along with a different perspective which modifies that prevailing view. The other choices are incorrect because the author does not compare examples supporting the prevailing view as suggested by answer choice (A), does not argue that the prevailing view was based on mistaken rationale as suggested by answer choice (B), and neither attacks the prevailing view’s supporting evidence nor examines it origins, as suggested by answer choices (D) and (E), respectively.

[BradLSAT]

Can you please explain where there is evidence that the author is offering a modification to the prevailing view? The entirety of the passage doesn't even seem to address (or modify, as answer C suggests) the prevailing view that host and parasite ultimately develop a benign coexistence. Aside from being briefly mentioned in P1, the author doesn't talk about any pathogens that develop a benign coexistence, he focuses on the virulent pathogens. It seems to me that he is presenting his own, new view, or at least a separate view which is more in-line with the view of the some recent biologists, but they seem to be presenting an entirely new hypothesis on virulent pathogens (not the symbiotically coexisting ones discussed in the prevailing view), and the author seems to agree with the recent biologists hypothesis (not the prevailing view) and adds the additional premise to the new hypothesis that the "sit and wait" pathogens are among the most dangerous.

[Robert Carroll]

Brad,

The view the author is presenting is in line with the biologists in line 10 (first paragraph), but that itself is a modification of the prevailing view. The prevailing view is not wrong, but instead incomplete - some parasites develop a benign coexistence with their hosts (so the prevailing view is true in those cases), but not all. So the prevailing view can be true sometimes, but not as a universal rule - it thus needs modification, which is what the biologists offer.

The idea that the new view isn't completely inconsistent with the prevailing view already comes up in the questions - see, e.g., question 21, where the answer is (D): the new view doesn't think the prevailing view is wrong entirely, but that it's too extreme in that it thinks that ALL host-parasite relationships are benign. As that answer choice says, in fact, there is more than just that one way for parasites to evolve.

Question 24 is also relevant here - every answer choice (and thus the correct answer) describes the start of the passage as an "introduction of a scientific anomaly". The anomaly is that host-parasite relations don't always fit the prevailing view. But that's an anomaly - it's only sometimes that the prevailing view is wrong. So, again, the prevailing view is good for many cases, and just needs modification to cover all the cases.

Robert Carroll

[ltowns1]

I got this right, but it really confused me. I’m kinda with Brad here in the sense nothin really stood out to me in determining whether the author still believes in the prevailing view. I think you could make the argument (although harder) that he doesn’t believe in the prevailing view. For example, Line (6) where the author says there was a prevailing view that in GENERAL says that hosts develop a benign coexistence with their hosts , but now we’re not so sure. If it was still the case that the prevailing view is still accepted, then wouldn’t this entire passage fall under the exception to the rule? Instead, as I read it, the author says this entire theory is at odds with the new information. Ultimately, the author never outright says that the theory is wrong and the rest of paragraph one seems like a big ol hypothetical which leads me to believe the author doesn’t want you stray away from the prevailing view too much. So considering all that, my question is was there any other way to tell the author’s POV for question 26?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi ltowns1!

Since the "prevailing view" language seems to be important here, it's worth including the context in which that starts out this passage: "Until recently, biologists were unable to explain the fact that pathogens—disease-causing parasites—have evolved to incapacitate, and often overwhelm, their hosts. Such behavior is at odds with the prevailing view of host-parasite relations—that, in general, host and parasite ultimately develop a benign coexistence" (lines 1-7).

To understand the author's point of view, this seems to be signaled in the first paragraph: "Some biologists, however, recently have suggested that if a pathogen reproduced so extensively ... This scenario suggests that even death-causing pathogens can achieve evolutionary success" (lines 15-18). The italicized words signal the author's view. There's a paradox in terms of how pathogens that immobilize people can reproduce, and the author's view is that biologists have recently made sense of this paradox. There's a move from the descriptive (a description of what some biologists found) to the author's conclusions about the significance of this finding.

If the prevailing view is that "host and parasite ultimately develop a benign coexistence," the passage centrally challenges this--even those parasites that incapacitate hosts (and thus aren't benign) can still reproduce and infect others.