#22 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[glasann]

I was totally convinced it was answer choice (C) because at the end of the last paragraph the author indicates that there must be "less radical explanations," which I took to mean that the author thinks Steele's hypothesis is too novel. I guess I was equating "novel" and "radical" in my head.

I eliminated (D) because at the beginning of the last paragraph the author explicitly concedes that the transfer Steele is hypothesizing is "POSSIBLE", he just seems to doubt whether it actually happens. I read that as the author saying it was plausible, just unlikely and too speculative.

Can you please provide some color around where my thought process went wrong and why (D) is the better answer choice?

Thanks!

[glasann]

Hello! Hoping to follow up on this. Thank you!

[MillsV]

Hi there glasann,

I saw that you haven't received an answer so I thought I could give it a shot. I understand what you're saying about the last sentence of paragraph 4, but I think the sentence IS actually questioning the plausibility of the process. And I think that the "does it ever actually occur?" highlights the author's doubt.

Also, I think answer C can be eliminated because the last paragraph made is seem like the author was more concerned about the evidence Steele has rather than the novelty of the process. To me, the "less radical explanations" comment was not the main point of the final paragraph, but just an idea that the author chose to end the passage with.

I hope this helps!

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the assist, MillsV! Your explanation is excellent, and I have only a little to add to it. In addition to the evidence that you cited, I think that tone of doubt runs through the entire passage in the way the author always refers to Steele's ideas. It's just a "claim," one that is "speculative," and the evidence is just "circumstantial." Even the use of quotation marks around "signature" and "written all over" and "strongly suggests" indicate doubt; that's one of the common uses of quotation marks, to indicate doubt about whether the quoted term is accurate or correct. The author seems dubious about the whole thing, even if it might be possible.

[andrewb22]

I chose (D) and completely understand why it is the best answer, but (E) seemed like a contender to me and I am still having trouble eliminating it. To me, the main contention the author has with the theory is evidence based, mainly that it is circumstantial and ,additionally, the reverse transcription "hypothesis." The tone of the passage make it seems like the author really didn't like that direct, experimental evidence was not provided. Am I off on this? Are there weaknesses to (E) that I am missing?

[Ryan Twomey]

Hey Andrew B 22,

This is one of those cases on the LSAT where it is very helpful to know the exact definition of the word in the answer choice. Rigor here means precision or exactness, which was not the author's concern.

I think words like circumstantial and speculitive point more so to a word like plausibility than it does rigor, which is why D is correct and E is incorrect. Now I wish they would have used the word "certainty" in answer choice E instead of "plausability" but "plausability" is still a better word choice than "rigor" making D the correct answer and E the incorrect answer.

You are correct in that the author's main qualm with the theory was the type of evidence used, so we just have to decide which word best describes that qualm, which is D. Reading comp is a lot of picking the best answer and not the most obvious answer which often is not present. The most obvious answer would have brought up evidence or certainty but then the answer choice would be too easy and too many people would get it right.

I hope this helps, and I wish you all of the best in your studying.

Best,
Ryan

[andrewb22]

I see what you're saying, Ryan. I guess I interpreted rigor in the context of this answer to mean that the author was upset over the lack of exhaustive research/experimentation that gets you closer to precision, and that he/she wanted more than a hypothesis one piece of circumstantial evidence. But looking back, "dismayed" seems too strong to fit with the tone of the passage anyway so that might be a weakness as well. Regardless, thanks for the response.

[Henry Z]

I'm very frustrated with this one. I was convinced (D) was wrong because the author says 1) "Steele and company believe this is possible, and they have devised an ELEGANT, but SPECULATIVE, story...", thus, in author's opinion, the theory is plausible (so close to elegant imo) but unproven; and 2) "But even if the process Steele and his colleagues describe is possible, does it ever actually occur?", thus the plausibility is not even author's concern.

I chose (E) because I think "rigor" is a perfect opposite to "speculative" and "circumstantial."

Also, my 2 cents on why (C) is wrong. I've read the explanations above but I think the point is that it's not the author's opinion. It's "other biologists" that indicate there must be "less radical explanations."

[Adam Tyson]

Saying the theory is "elegant" isn't all that close to saying it's plausible, Henry Z. They author could easily think it's pure fantasy, but pretty cool in the way it attempts to provide all the answers in a pretty package. Elegance, in the scientific context, generally means simplicity in the way it explains something. It doesn't indicate that the theory rings true.

Answer E's use of "dismay" is too strong here. The author's tone is more like skepticism - doubt - than it is of dismay, which is more like distress and sadness.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the tone of doubt is spread throughout the passage in the use of quotation marks around certain terms and phrases, as well as the author's repeated use of "they claim" and "they believe" to describe the theory being discussed. This distances the author from Steele and his colleagues, putting their claims at arm's length.