Q18 - New Age philosopher: Nature

[skapur777]

Got this one right but I had some question about the elimination of others:

A- don't see anything like this...what statement are they referring to? kept for now
B- wrong because the structure of reasoning doesn't matter, maybe their reasoning "structure" is wrong, eliminated
C- hung up on this one. i was thinking that maybe since one could possibly understand nature through deliberately isolated parts of nature, he shouldve been more specifics of the characteristics of the phenomenon as a whole versus those of the isolated parts..but then i was thinking...this could go either way. it could either help his argument or not, since it is ambiguous i wasn't sure how to take this. is this still a flaw? am i approaching this the right way? do ambiguous choices that could either help/hurt mean anything in these 'flawed reasoning' questions? more specifically, what does "phenomenon" mean in the case of the lsat?
D- you could think of it as separate but its not the best way to understand it, eliminate
E- this one was clearest to me in being the right answer so i picked it and moved on.

i got lucky...

also this is another just random question that has been bugging me. What do "double no" statements mean. For example:

No intelligent people are neither drummers or bassists.

Does that mean all intelligent people are drummers or bassists?

[rhb5r]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though the stimulus (kinda) has a false dilemma, meaning it presents a few solutions to a problem as if they were the only solutions to that problem. In other words, a "holistic, nonlinear way of reasoning" is the only option besides a traditional linear reasoning of science.

I picked E) because it attacked the underlying assumption that a phenomenon can only be understood by a form of reasoning that possesses similar properties (ie other forms of reasoning, linear or otherwise, could offer a better understanding of nature).

[maryadkins]

Here's my take on this question

18. (E)
Question Type: Flaw
First, the core is: Nature is interconnected --> should study it through holistic way, not the traditional, linear way. But maybe the best way to study it doesn’t match what it looks like! French is a romantic language, but do my French lessons need to be all lovey dovey? No thanks. We are looking for an answer that attacks the gap between the premise and the conclusion. Don’t be thrown by the abstract language of the answer choices. Read carefully and replace general terms in the answer choices with specific terms from the argument.

(A) is incorrect, though it may be jarring on first read before you translate it. Translation: something necessary also has to be sufficient. We aren’t dealing with a necessary versus sufficient problem, here.
(B) is incorrect, but it may be tempting on first read. Our conclusion is about what’s best, not what merely "is." In fact, the stimulus acknowledges that the way science has proceeded historically"”in a "linear" fashion"”is counter to how it should proceed to achieve the best possible understanding. (B) addresses the wrong argument"”an argument about what people do, not what is best to do.
(C) is incorrect. Remember: the core is not about the differences between nature as a whole and isolated parts of nature. We are told in a premise that nature is interconnected. The argument is about whether the study of it should match its structure.
(D) is incorrect The argument is not that nature cannot be thought of as separate"”it is that it cannot be best understood in separate parts.

[kaseyb002]

Here's my take on this question

18. (E)
Question Type: Flaw
First, the core is: Nature is interconnected --> should study it through holistic way, not the traditional, linear way. But maybe the best way to study it doesn’t match what it looks like! French is a romantic language, but do my French lessons need to be all lovey dovey? No thanks. We are looking for an answer that attacks the gap between the premise and the conclusion. Don’t be thrown by the abstract language of the answer choices. Read carefully and replace general terms in the answer choices with specific terms from the argument.

(A) is incorrect, though it may be jarring on first read before you translate it. Translation: something necessary also has to be sufficient. We aren’t dealing with a necessary versus sufficient problem, here.
(B) is incorrect, but it may be tempting on first read. Our conclusion is about what’s best, not what merely "is." In fact, the stimulus acknowledges that the way science has proceeded historically"”in a "linear" fashion"”is counter to how it should proceed to achieve the best possible understanding. (B) addresses the wrong argument"”an argument about what people do, not what is best to do.
(C) is incorrect. Remember: the core is not about the differences between nature as a whole and isolated parts of nature. We are told in a premise that nature is interconnected. The argument is about whether the study of it should match its structure.
(D) is incorrect The argument is not that nature cannot be thought of as separate"”it is that it cannot be best understood in separate parts.

Yeah I agree; I think that's the real reason. It seems like "stucture" would be an okay word to use right?

[josh.randall52]

I chose E on this question mainly through PoE, but which words in the stimulus alert one to say that the best way to understand something as having certain properties ONLY through those properties?

I was a little hesitant on the blind review. I'm assuming since they say this is the best way, that best = only?

thanks!

[cacrv]

bump! can someone further explain why B is wrong? I also eliminated it because I didn't think the "structure of reasoning" was the right way to describe this, but maybe it's because while the the argument does factually assume that structure of phenomenon = reasoning structure of phenomenon, the flaw isn't that, it's the fact that it assumes it's the best method for this particular case?

[emily315]

B is wrong because the order of reasoning is wrong?
The process of reasoning is like,
nature is wholistic and organic--> therefore, understanding of nature should also be conducted in a holistic and organic way.
B says understanding of phenomenon does not mean nature shares that property.
It's order is wrong.

[ohthatpatrick]

The author's conclusion is addressing this question:
"What sort of reasoning do you need to use to acquire the best possible understanding of nature?"

(B) is about what sort of reasoning people are currently or previously doing about nature.

The author's conclusion is about what the ideal path requires.
(B) is addressing what has actually transpired.

The actual reasoning people have done about nature is irrelevant to the question of what reasoning is required to get the best understanding.

The only way people's actual reasoning could be relevant would be if someone had ACTUALLY attained the best possible understanding of nature. If that were the case, sure, we'd want to know what sort of reasoning they used to get there.

Short of that, the conversation about what people are doing is a separate one from the conversation about what would be required to attain the best understanding.