LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 nutcracker
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: Aug 13, 2017
|
#38571
Hello,

When doing this question, I hesitated between A and D and ended up picking A, partially because the author mentioned two distinct explanations in the passage. I guess the problem with A is the word "survey" but I'm not sure how exactly it is not accurate in this context. Could someone briefly explain what kind of structure and content would be properly described as "survey"? Does the author has to take absolutely no stance on any of the arguments that are mentioned? Thank you very much!
 AthenaDalton
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: May 02, 2017
|
#38611
Great question!

You're on the right track. A "survey" of academic literature on a subject usually involves giving an overview of many different researchers' take on a topic -- it's tough to put a number on it, but comparing and contrasting two different points of view falls short.

You were also right to hone in on the fact that this author takes a strong stance in favor of one interpretation of the experiment. Surveys generally report the state of the literature in a field without taking sides. Here, the author's whole article builds up to a single conclusion: that our evolutionary development makes us pre-disposed to reject low offers to preserve our self-esteem. He's advocating for a side; not just explaining what other researchers are investigating.

A survey article would look something like this:

Many researchers are investigating the reason for the decline in the honeybee population in America. A leading theory for the decline is that climate change has reduced the growing season for the flowers which provide food for honeybees, thereby cutting honeybees' food supply by as much as 40 percent in some areas.

A number of researchers are investigating alternate theories. A dozen studies have confirmed that there is a correlation between urban sprawl and honeybee populations, but the studies did not contain enough data to pinpoint the root cause of this link. A couple of promising studies showed a powerful correlation between the use of Pesticide X and a decline in local honeybee population. However, to date researchers do not know if Pesticide X itself is harmful to bees, or if farmers in arid regions are more likely to use it to combat warm-weather pests. Additional research on Pesticide X is needed.


I hope this helps. Good luck studying!
 nutcracker
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: Aug 13, 2017
|
#38640
Hi Athena! Thank you for your reply. I have a follow-up question regarding the survey article example you provided. Here the author seems to have commented on how the second and third theories are not adequately persuasive at the moment. Does this qualify as taking sides? Or should "taking sides" be understood more narrowly as making explicit comparisons between several theories advanced and stating which one is more compelling? I appreciate your help.
 AthenaDalton
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: May 02, 2017
|
#38680
Good question!

A survey will sometimes include commentary on areas of the field that deserve additional research, or preliminary findings that merit a more robust inquiry. The goal of a survey is to present the state of the field, including areas of the field that need additional study. Look for a neutral, just-the-facts tone to distinguish it from a persuasive piece.

Good luck studying. :)
 brcibake
  • Posts: 55
  • Joined: Jul 19, 2017
|
#40470
Hello,
I was stuck between B and D on this on. I ultimately picked B because of the number of theories offered. B says there are two theories offered. There are two theories/explanation in the passage. D makes it seem like there is one large explanation, which there is, but doesn't feature the two components. I'm not sure how one would be able to decipher between the two.
Thanks,
Brcibake
 Eric Ockert
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: Sep 28, 2011
|
#41079
Hi Brcibake!

You are right that there are two theories present in the passage. However, the author never really establishes that the two "complement" each other. The author seems to reject the interpretation of the traditional explanation in favor of the subsequent explanation. This is the explanation that the author offers in answer choice (D).

Be careful with answers like answer choice (B). Much like Method of Reasoning questions on Logical Reasoning, Primary Purpose questions on Reading Comprehension will often refer to things that were present in the passage but describe them in inaccurate ways. So here, yes there were two theories, but the author never said they complemented each other. So this answer, while tempting on the one hand because it mentions both theories, is ultimately wrong because it describes something the author never actually did.

Hope that helps!
User avatar
 smtq123
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: May 28, 2021
|
#87412
Can someone explain why C is wrong? Is the author not arguing that the puzzling results are valid by stating evolution theory (the last paragraph)?
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1774
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#87423
smtq,

The author doesn't feel like there's any reason to argue that the results of the experiment are valid. The author thinks they are pretty straightforwardly valid, but that a puzzle arises as to how to explain them. Imagine the two possible responses to a puzzling result of an experiment: either "run that experiment again, I don't think we did it right" or "well, we did the experiment right, so now we need to explain why it works out this way." The latter is the way the author is approaching the Ultimatum Game experiments. Their results say what they say - no question of validity arises. But the results, which the author thinks we have to accept, are hard to explain. So the passage goes about trying to use the evolutionary history of humans to explain the results.

Robert Carroll
User avatar
 ashpine17
  • Posts: 321
  • Joined: Apr 06, 2021
|
#99459
if the two theories was referring the one in the second to last paragraph and the actual last paragraph, how do we know these two do not complement each other? the author said the former didn't provide a complete explanation and the last one did; wouldn't that count as complementing?
User avatar
 Jeff Wren
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 385
  • Joined: Oct 19, 2022
|
#99906
Hi ashpine,

The first step to ruling out Answer B is to clearly identify what are the "puzzling results" described in this answer choice. The puzzling results aren't the fact that the proposers offer "large" amounts (often 40 to 50%) to the other person. That is explained based on a sense of "fairness" and isn't especially surprising.

The puzzling results refer to the fact that responders will often reject lowball offers that they feel are unfair, even though they are actually worse off (financially) by doing so. This is specified in lines 21-27.

The reason that it's important to clearly identify the puzzling results is that, according to the passage, the first theory doesn't explain the puzzling results. The first theory "at best explains why proposers offer large amounts, not why responders reject low offers" (lines 36-37). Unfortunately, why responders reject low offers is what we care about because that is the puzzling result that the passage is trying to explain. Also, the words "at best" imply that the author doesn't even admit that this theory does actually explain why proposers offer large amounts, just that it may.

Due to this, the first theory doesn't help explain the puzzling results, and therefore doesn't complement the other theory in explaining these puzzling results.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.