Q15

[tzyc]

I found their interest is in the more "fundamental" issues and they are interested in the chemical nature of protoplasm, but how do we know it's "Onlyby~" they can uderstand the process? I think the word only is too strong...or is it because it's asking the most compatible statement?

Thank you

[rinagoldfield]

Hey TZ,

Great question. You’re right to be skeptical of strong words like "only."

In this case, let’s look at the views of the biochemists in question. The biochemists believed that understanding the chemical composition of protoplasm was "fundamental" to understanding cells (lines 29-31). At the same time, they argued against cytologists, whom they believed to be "too ignorant of chemistry to grasp the basic processes [of cells]" (lines 33-35.) Take together, these lines imply that the biochemists believed that understanding the chemistry of protoplasm was NECESSARY to understanding cell processes. In this case, the "only" in answer choice (B) is justified.

TZ, you’re right that (B) is also far more supported than any other answer choice. This question is a good one to approach using a process of elimination, since the subject matter is dense and the right answer contains red flags like the "only" you pointed out.

(A) is the opposite of what we’re looking for. The cytologists, not the biochemists, were interested in cell structure.

(C) is tempting, but "behavioral patterns" makes it out of scope.

(D) talks about physical structure rather than chemical structure. Contradicted!

(E) is out of scope. Supplementing the methods of chemistry? That’s not what the biochemists talked about.

Does that make sense?

--Rina

[tzyc]

Hi, thank you for the response and I read the passage again...
Um, actually confused a little
The line 33-35 says "biochemists judged to be too ignorant of chemistry to grasp the basic processes"...so the author says it's biochemist who is ignorant right?
How would it be combined to another sentence and would mean necessary to understand the cell process?
From what you wrote, it seems the author says it's cytologists who are too ignorant (and that's what biochemists believe)...if it's cytologists, then actually I think I understand why it'd be necessary as your explanation, but if it's saying it's biochemists then I'm confused because the biochemists should believe chemistry or chemical composition to understand the process...so it would be contradicted.
I'm not sure whether my question makes sense...
Could you provide some additional explanation?
Thank you for the help.

[marcus.v.p.]

Yeah, I didn't like how that was phrased either. When putting it in context, it seems like the biochemists were making that critique of, "judged to be too ignorant of chemistry to grasp the basic processes" on the cytologist. Then in the next sentence, the cytologists are critiquing the bio chemists.

LSAT geeks, is that how we should interpret these two sentences in the 3rd paragraph??

[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?

In this case, let’s look at the views of the biochemists in question. The biochemists believed that understanding the chemical composition of protoplasm was "fundamental" to understanding cells (lines 29-31).

[economienda]

deedubbew:

I agree with you: the LSAT writers should have worded it, "...biochemists judge CYTOLOGISTS to be too ignorant of chemistry..." Here, we know that it is cytologists who are too ignorant of chemistry.

The wording, "...biochemists judged to be too ignorant of chemistry..." makes is sound like it is the biochemists themselves who are too ignorant of chemistry.

[okaroshinn]

Hey everyone, there seems to be some confusion about the line in question from 33-57 in this passage. I believe that LSAT made an error of some kind because I have recently bought this test (2015) and the correction is rectified in this version. I think that the LSAT makers found this error and corrected it. Now it says...

"In general, biochemist judged cytologist to be too ignorant of chemistry to grasp the basic processes, whereas cytologist considered the methods of biochemist inadequate to characterize the structures of the living cell."

Hope this helps in your analysis.

[tommywallach]

Thanks for that addition, oka!

-t