PT20.S2.P4 (Q26) - in the dynamics of apocalypse

Cecilia ZCecilia Z Member
edited June 2017 in Reading Comprehension 144 karma

Hey everyone! Having a bit of difficulty with this passage. It's from the first RC problem set in the core curriculum. I was wondering if anyone could add to JY's explanation for #26 and explain how (E) is supported? I chose (A), but I felt uneasy about both because I didn't think the author would agree with either of the options. Thanks so much!

Here's the link to JY's explanation:
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-2-passage-4-questions/

Comments

  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    8711 karma

    Our author certainly agrees with the first half of answer choice (E) on question 26. The support for the information before the comma comes from lines 24-26, our author essentially says here: yeah, tLowe is pretty believable given the available evidence. The second half of answer choice (E) is where things get a bit tougher. Basically our author asks in lines 45-47: does the available evidence actually paint a true picture? The author then remarks in lines 47-50 how difficult it is to draw historical inferences from the archeological record, because of the complexity of a civilization. Our author then tells us that it is "quite possible" that a "radical" realignment of our understanding could take place by the inclusion of better data. That is lines 51-53. Our author then concludes the passage by saying in essence: if we discover this single piece of evidence that runs contra to Lower's assumption: Lowe's argument is weakened.

    I believe what the author is telling us in the third paragraph is Lowe's theory is only as good as the current data allows it to be, you know? That we might find something some day that disproves Lowe's theory. In this vein, I believe the author takes a scientific stance to Lowe's theory, that is to say that we never really prove theories correct, we simply often fail to prove them wrong. Knowing that a single piece of evidence that runs contra to Lowe's argument might be out there waiting to be discovered is enough in the author's view to make it "impossible to confirm."

    I should not here that I do not like the word "impossible" in answer choice (E). One of those strange questions in my opinion.

    Hope this helps
    David

Sign In or Register to comment.