Q8

[dababbott]

Can someone break down (D) vs. (E) for me?

I debated a bit, had (D) chosen tentatively on my bubble sheet, finished with some time left, and came back to it and decided in an aha! moment that (D) was too narrow scope in that it only talked about parallel systems, whereas (E) and the third paragraph extends to other natural processes, like the honeycomb, and the future...(and I thought the common theme throughout the WHOLE passage, with parts of P1, and P3, less so P2, was about nature and the paradigm shift in design). But P2 felt like an example or explanatory paragraph to me.

I changed my answer; -1 LSAT point for me.

Is there a better way to really dig into what the main point is on these? In general, what clues are there to when the last sentence and paragraph are really relevant and when are they a decoy, as the last two sentences were here?

[bbirdwell]

Interesting lesson to learn!

My advice is to stick to dry facts for the most part and take the biggest, most complete structural point of view possible.

We have no evidence for (E) that this guy's work has made it any "more likely" that scientists will look to nature. The guy himself believes that, but the author doesn't present it as fact. The bigger point is that he did this stuff, and it was awesome at solving hard problems. That's (D).

[eunjung.shin]

Interesting lesson to learn!

My advice is to stick to dry facts for the most part and take the biggest, most complete structural point of view possible.

We have no evidence for (E) that this guy's work has made it any "more likely" that scientists will look to nature. The guy himself believes that, but the author doesn't present it as fact. The bigger point is that he did this stuff, and it was awesome at solving hard problems. That's (D).

I was debating between D & E as well. The last sentence of the passage says that "this paradigm shift will enable us to better understand the systems evolved by nature and to facilitate the evolution of human technology." so...you are saying that sentence does not infer that the shift has made it more likely that scientists will in the future to look to systems evolved by nature?

At first I thought "will enable" so..it will be more likely that scientists will use this paradigm but I guess that's a leap that I assumed. right? tricky....

[bbirdwell]

Yeah it's definitely tricky. A few things I'd point out that might help:

1. The author didn't say the "will enable" part - that was a quote from Emeagwali.

2. Even if it were the author saying that quote, it would technically be an assumption of ours to believe that simply because we are enabled to do something that we are more likely to do it.

For example, let's say Bob has a new gym membership, which will enable him to use the facilities at any time.

Does this mean Bob is more likely to use the facilities? In conversation, perhaps yes, but on the LSAT, not quite.

3. Finally, note the similarity between (E) and that final sentence you've quoted. Eerily similar, eh? Gotta watch out for those kinds of traps. Direct quotes like that aren't always wrong, but they often are, and should send up red flags. As I pointed out earlier, the big thing wrong with (E) is that we are looking for the author's point, and (E) is a perfect summary of Emeagwali's point, not the author's.

Definitely a tough question!

[melmoththewanderer88]

I was deliberating between A, D and C. I ruled out A because we don't know that supercomputers cannot solve those real world problems, only that some of those problems are difficult to solve. D seemed too narrow, so I selected C for this question.

What makes C incorrect?

[bbirdwell]

Emeagwali did not discover the "basic mathematical principles underlying natural systems."

In lines 41-48 we learn that Emeagwali used the mathematic principles underlying tree branches.

Using these principles and "discovering" them are two very different things. Also, "natural systems" is much too broad. Read (C) again and try to notice how grandiose and general it is. We know that he used tree branches and bees' honeycombs. "Natural systems" is far too broad.

[aznriceboi17]

Could someone explain why A is wrong? The main problem I see with it is the phrase 'wide array.' The passage only provided the applications to oil flow and global weather pattern prediction, which doesn't seem like rather narrow applications. An earlier post said that the 'supercomputers cannot solve' part seems problematic -- what do others think about that? My thought was that if 'they were too slow and inefficient to accurately predict ...' in the case of oil flow, then that counts as not being able to solve.

[maryadkins]

Could someone explain why A is wrong? The main problem I see with it is the phrase 'wide array.' The passage only provided the applications to oil flow and global weather pattern prediction, which doesn't seem like rather narrow applications.

Bingo! "Wide array" is not supported by the passage because two examples--one of which hasn't even happened yet--don't constitute a "wide array."

An earlier post said that the 'supercomputers cannot solve' part seems problematic -- what do others think about that? My thought was that if 'they were too slow and inefficient to accurately predict ...' in the case of oil flow, then that counts as not being able to solve.

Agreed. It is supportable that they cannot solve the problems if they are "too slow and inefficient," as it tells us in line 20.

As for why the other answer choices are wrong:

(B) Little difficulty? Many real-world problems? Neither is what this passage is focused on, and "little difficulty" is unsupported entirely.

(C) Growing use? Where? Knock it out.

And (D) and (E) have already been discussed on this thread.

[aznriceboi17]

Thanks for the response!