RC Question 20 Explanation
DISCUSSION: I found this question difficult. I had to go by process of elimination. I had to consider the question at length on review to get a better understanding of why the right answer is right.
I now see that certain keywords show that passage A is considerably more in favor of the ideas it discusses than passage B.
Both authors agree with what they are discussing. But passage A is more forceful. On line 4, the author says that new findings “radically” change how we should think about the law.
Lines 15-20 say that this new idea should lead us to abandon the now dominant idea of retribution in criminal sentencing. In other words, the author of passage A is so committed to the ideas they’re discussing that they recommend completely changing our legal system and how we think about crime. That’s a major suggestion!
Whereas the author of passage B only speaks mildly favorably of Ayer. In lines 52-56 they extend Ayer’s ideas, showing that they do agree with Ayer. But they agree with Ayer without any hyperbolic terms like “radical”, and they don’t suggest dramatic changes in our institutions as a result of these ideas.
So C, “detached”, is the best answer: the author of passage A more closely associates themselves with the ideas they discuss than the author of passage B does. “Engaged” was the other answer I considered, but to be engaged with ideas is just to actively consider the ideas you’re discussing, and both authors do that.
Neither author is skeptical or dismissive (they’re similar terms), and they’re definitely not ironic.
___________
- See the analysis above.
- The author of passage B agrees with Ayer. See lines 52-56, where the author even extends Ayer’s ideas.
- CORRECT. See the analysis above.
- Irony is notoriously hard to define. This is highly unlikely to ever be an LSAT answer.
- Same as B.
I thought engaged should be the right answer, because passage A seems so… shallow and reactionary. It felt like in Passage A, the author was taking a shallow understanding of the neuroscientific argument and using it to immediately leap to abolishing punishments for crimes in some cases.
Passage B on the other hand seems to be taking a much more careful approach to the topic, discussing and differentiating details and nuance of the topic. I feel like he was more engaged, not more detached.
Engaged means that you are attentive to something and interested in it. Coming to an overenthusiastic and wrong conclusion is definitely engaged!
A careful approach, by contrast, is a detached one. The definition of the word used here is “aloof and objective” which matches with your description. Think “impartial” or “careful”. Detached can be a positive word.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
I wavered between detached and skeptical, and ultimately picked skeptical because, in lines 25-31, the author of passage B appears to be skeptical of the idea that new discoveries in neuroscience mean that determinism and free will cannot coexist. I’m having a hard time seeing how that author is not skeptical of the strict determinst view “fueled” by these discoveries. Where am I going wrong?