Passage Discussion

[raymondcezar]

When and after I read some passages, I struggle with finding the other side of the argument, regarding the passage's scale. (Though, I do feel that I understand the passage.) With this passage, the author only reveals one side: antithetical disciplines can sometimes lead to synthesized disciplines.

I feel like generating the contrapositive of the author's argument would be the wrong way to go about in figuring this out. Is there any way we can correctly find the other side, for the scale? Perhaps there is something the author mentioned that will pinpoint us to another side, in which I do not see.

I so appreciate the help!

[ohthatpatrick]

Great question.

I think you're correct, that it would be 'forcing it' here to generate some fake opponent of the author.

The truth is that not all passages have scales. Sometimes the author is just out to make a point and makes it without ever considering/mentioning potential opposition to that idea.

ALL passages have an author's main idea, so that's my primary focus in reading a passage. MOST passages have a central argument (or scale), so that ends up being a useful way of keeping track of how the discussion swings back and forth. But when the entire discussion is following one trajectory, feel confident that there is no scale!

The most common structure to a passage with no scale, by the way, is Generalization Supported by Example.

When an author's first paragraph contains a broad claim and then he sets about fleshing out that claim by discussing a particular example, it's very unlikely you'll hit oppositional ideas anywhere in the passage.

Here, our first paragraph is very general (and hard to understand in my opinion). When we hit the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, we see the purpose of this passage: the relationship of cytology to biochemistry exemplifies such a pattern.

Happy reading.

[deedubbew]

Line 33-37 says "In general, biochemists judged to be too ignorant of chemistry to grasp the basic processes, whereas cytologists considered the methods to biologists inadequate to characterize the structures of the living cell." The language in the first part of the sentence is confusing to me since it seems to be missing the word "cytologists." It would have made more sense if the sentence said, "...biochemists judge cytologists to be too ignorant of chemistry."

Is this a typo or am I just grammatically inept?

Great question.

I think you're correct, that it would be 'forcing it' here to generate some fake opponent of the author.

The truth is that not all passages have scales. Sometimes the author is just out to make a point and makes it without ever considering/mentioning potential opposition to that idea.

ALL passages have an author's main idea, so that's my primary focus in reading a passage. MOST passages have a central argument (or scale), so that ends up being a useful way of keeping track of how the discussion swings back and forth. But when the entire discussion is following one trajectory, feel confident that there is no scale!

The most common structure to a passage with no scale, by the way, is Generalization Supported by Example.

When an author's first paragraph contains a broad claim and then he sets about fleshing out that claim by discussing a particular example, it's very unlikely you'll hit oppositional ideas anywhere in the passage.

Here, our first paragraph is very general (and hard to understand in my opinion). When we hit the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, we see the purpose of this passage: the relationship of cytology to biochemistry exemplifies such a pattern.

Happy reading.

[WaltGrace1983]

Line 33-37 says "In general, biochemists judged to be too ignorant of chemistry to grasp the basic processes, whereas cytologists considered the methods to biologists inadequate to characterize the structures of the living cell." The language in the first part of the sentence is confusing to me since it seems to be missing the word "cytologists." It would have made more sense if the sentence said, "...biochemists judge cytologists to be too ignorant of chemistry."

Is this a typo or am I just grammatically inept?

I was totally confused by that too! Yet I am going to try and stop myself from assuming things are typos (if this were the case on the LSAT, we would all be in trouble) and start just assuming that some sentences/passages are just odd.

We would expect that, before giving some evidence that cytologists considered biochemists inadequate, there would be something about how biochemists judged cytologists to be too [insert adjective]. After all, we know that these two sides were involved in some feuding. Because of these expectations, I think it shows a good read with a solid approach utilizing the PEAR process.

I just took it as a weird sentence basically saying that some unidentified people (general population? cytologists?) judges biochemists to be ignorant while cytologists considered biochemists inadequate. Biochemists just weren't getting any love!

[Laura Damone]

I would actually argue that the word "cytologists" is missing from line 32. The accusation is that the group being criticized is "too ignorant of chemistry to grasp the basic processes." It wouldn't be logical for biochemists to be criticized in that that way. This, coupled with the structural agreement you mentioned (bios judged cytos, whereas cytos considered bios), really points to an unintentional omission!