Kaplan Section Test 10 VR Humanities Passage 9

[SKaminski]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I got 4 answers wrong on this section, but only got 12 wrong overall, so I decided to take a closer look at the answers/questions I got wrong. I realized that for two of them, the 'logic' explained in the answers is incompatible with the presented text.

Question 56:
Relevant Passage Section:
Paragraph 3:

All of this made me think that it was necessary to look for some other methodological approach which, comprising the advantages of these three, was at the same time exempt from their defaults. And, just as the multitude of laws often provides rationalization for vice, such that any State is better ruled if, having but a few vices, it closely monitors them, thus likewise, instead following the great number of precepts which compose logic, I thought that I would have enough with the four following, as long as I made a firm and constant resolution never - not even once - to neglect my adherence to them.

Question:
Which of the following best expresses the author's attitude towards the existence of vice in a State?
A. National vices should be considered equivalent to deductive flaws in logic.
B. Vices can be justified or excused through legal channels.
C. An effective government must eradicate all vices in its rulers and citizens.
D. Certain vices may be unavoidable, but can be kept under control though careful observation.

My choice: B.
Kaplan's choice: D.

Kaplan's justification: Answer choice D paraphrases the long and complicated sentence that ends paragraph 3. A is completely Outside the Scope, B is a distortion of the beginning of the final sentence of paragraph 3, and C is FUD of the same sentence.

My justification: Kaplan is a liar. Firstly, the article never mentions vices being "unavoidable", so D is outside the scope. Secondly, Choice B is in no way a distortion, but is directly pulled from the text. Lastly, choice D takes on the authors point of view of vice in a Person, but the question distinctly asks for the existence of vice in a State. The only reference to vice in a State relates to its legality, and nothing more. QED, Kaplan is a liar.

Question 59:
Relevant Passage Sections:

Paragraph 1
But while examining these fields [the field of logic], I noticed that, in logic syllogisms and the bulk of other logical theorems serve only to explain to others the things that one already knows, or even... to speak without judgement of things that one doesn't know, rather than to teach others anything; and, although logic contains, in effect, many true and just precepts, there are yet among these so many others mixed in, which are superfluous or refutable, that it is almost sickening to separate one from the other...

Paragraph 5
The second [precept], to divide each of the difficulties I was examining into as many parts as could be created and would be required to better resolve them.

Question
The author would be LEAST likely to agree with which of the following statements:
A. Logic is an inappropriate field of research for young scholars.
B. a scholar should always treat the subjects of his or her study in its entirety.
C. orderly study is based on the principle that a whole is the sum of its parts.
D. teaching is one of the motivations for studying abstract ideas and theories.

My Choice: A
Kaplan's Choice: B

Kaplan's Justification: Paragraph 5 contains the author's precept that each "difficulty" should be divided into smaller parts in order to better understand and resolve it, so answer choice B is correct. A is FUD, for the author mentions his own study of logic when he was younger but does not pronounce an opinion......

I think the scorer didn't read the word LEAST? The author would agree with B, and would disagree with A because he never gave an opinion. Should Kaplan be more careful here, or am i making a mistake?

 

[TieuBachHo]

All of this made me think that it was necessary to look for some other methodological approach which, comprising the advantages of these three, was at the same time exempt from their defaults. And, just as the multitude of laws often provides rationalization for vice, such that any State is better ruled if, having but a few vices, it closely monitors them, thus likewise, instead following the great number of precepts which compose logic, I thought that I would have enough with the four following, as long as I made a firm and constant resolution never - not even once - to neglect my adherence to them.

Question:
Which of the following best expresses the author's attitude towards the existence of vice in a State?
A. National vices should be considered equivalent to deductive flaws in logic.
B. Vices can be justified or excused through legal channels.
C. An effective government must eradicate all vices in its rulers and citizens.
D. Certain vices may be unavoidable, but can be kept under control though careful observation.

My choice: B.
Kaplan's choice: D.

Kaplan's justification: Answer choice D paraphrases the long and complicated sentence that ends paragraph 3. A is completely Outside the Scope, B is a distortion of the beginning of the final sentence of paragraph 3, and C is FUD of the same sentence.

My justification: Kaplan is a liar. Firstly, the article never mentions vices being "unavoidable", so D is outside the scope. Secondly, Choice B is in no way a distortion, but is directly pulled from the text. Lastly, choice D take the authors point of view of vice in a Person, but the question distinctly asks for the existence of vice in a State. The only reference to vice in a State relates to its legality, and nothing more. QED, Kaplan is a liar.

===> "Kaplan is a liar" may be true LOL. The phrase "may be unavoidable" is differerent from "a definitive unavoidable". There are no justification for vices made in the passage but to "closely monitor them". So it's a distortion to say the there are justifications for vices, right? The author draws parallel analogies between multitude of laws and vices, NOT that "vices can be justified or excused through legal channels". There are no legal channels mentioned anywhere in the passage. Now, looking at answer D, "careful observation" is equivalent to "closely monitoring". The whole choice is very close to what the author's attitude toward vices. What the author said is: vices can be a positive reinforcement if they are closely monitored.

 

[TieuBachHo]

Question 59:
Relevant Passage Sections:

Paragraph 1
But while examining these fields [the field of logic], I noticed that, in logic syllogisms and the bulk of other logical theorems serve only to explain to others the things that one already knows, or even... to speak without judgement of things that one doesn't know, rather than to teach others anything; and, although logic contains, in effect, many true and just precepts, there are yet among these so many others mixed in, which are superfluous or refutable, that it is almost sickening to separate one from the other...
===> This is an introduction to the field of logic. How it is difficult to separate them from one another.

Paragraph 5
The second [precept], to divide each of the difficulties I was examining into as many parts as could be created and would be required to better resolve them.
===> It's better to devide them into subsections.

Question
The author would be LEAST likely to agree with which of the following statements:
A. Logic is an inappropriate field of research for young scholars.
B. a scholar should always treat the subjects of his or her study in its entirety.
C. orderly study is based on the principle that a whole is the sum of its parts.
D. teaching is one of the motivations for studying abstract ideas and theories.

My Choice: A
Kaplan's Choice: B

Kaplan's Justification: Paragraph 5 contains the author's precept that each "difficulty" should be divided into smaller parts in order to better understand and resolve it, so answer choice B is correct. A is FUD, for the author mentions his own study of logic when he was younger but does not pronounce an opinion......

I think the scorer didn't read the word LEAST? The author would agree with B, and would disagree with A because he never gave an opinion. Should Kaplan be more careful here, or am i making a mistake?

===> B clearly contradicts the author's second [precept] which must be what the author least likely to agree with. It's better to devide them into smaller parts than teaching a whole vast field of logics. A has nothing to do what the author agrees or disagrees (I don't have the WHOLE passage by the way). He doesn't say it is an INAPPROPRIATE field, does he? For these questions, find the most relevant answers that counter the author's.

 

[SKaminski]

All of this made me think that it was necessary to look for some other methodological approach which, comprising the advantages of these three, was at the same time exempt from their defaults. And, just as the multitude of laws often provides rationalization for vice, such that any State is better ruled if, having but a few vices, it closely monitors them, thus likewise, instead following the great number of precepts which compose logic, I thought that I would have enough with the four following, as long as I made a firm and constant resolution never - not even once - to neglect my adherence to them.

Question:
Which of the following best expresses the author's attitude towards the existence of vice in a State?
A. National vices should be considered equivalent to deductive flaws in logic.
B. Vices can be justified or excused through legal channels.
C. An effective government must eradicate all vices in its rulers and citizens.
D. Certain vices may be unavoidable, but can be kept under control though careful observation.

My choice: B.
Kaplan's choice: D.

Kaplan's justification: Answer choice D paraphrases the long and complicated sentence that ends paragraph 3. A is completely Outside the Scope, B is a distortion of the beginning of the final sentence of paragraph 3, and C is FUD of the same sentence.

My justification: Kaplan is a liar. Firstly, the article never mentions vices being "unavoidable", so D is outside the scope. Secondly, Choice B is in no way a distortion, but is directly pulled from the text. Lastly, choice D take the authors point of view of vice in a Person, but the question distinctly asks for the existence of vice in a State. The only reference to vice in a State relates to its legality, and nothing more. QED, Kaplan is a liar.

===> "Kaplan is a liar" may be true LOL. The phrase "may be unavoidable" is differerent from "a definitive unavoidable". There are no justification for vices made in the passage but to "closely monitor them". So it's a distortion to say the there are justifications for vices, right? The author draws parallel analogies between multitude of laws and vices, NOT that "vices can be justified or excused through legal channels". There are no legal channels mentioned anywhere in the passage. Now, looking at answer D, "careful observation" is equivalent to "closely monitoring". The whole choice is very close to what the author's attitude toward vices. What the author said is: vices can be a positive reinforcement if they are closely monitored.

So, what you're saying is that B is invalid because the text states "rationalize" not "justify", and as such this is a distortion (because there is no softener).

and A is valid because of the softener?

 

[SKaminski]

Question 59:
Relevant Passage Sections:

Paragraph 1
But while examining these fields [the field of logic], I noticed that, in logic syllogisms and the bulk of other logical theorems serve only to explain to others the things that one already knows, or even... to speak without judgement of things that one doesn't know, rather than to teach others anything; and, although logic contains, in effect, many true and just precepts, there are yet among these so many others mixed in, which are superfluous or refutable, that it is almost sickening to separate one from the other...
===> This is an introduction to the field of logic. How it is difficult to separate them from one another.

Paragraph 5
The second [precept], to divide each of the difficulties I was examining into as many parts as could be created and would be required to better resolve them.
===> It's better to devide them into subsections.

Question
The author would be LEAST likely to agree with which of the following statements:
A. Logic is an inappropriate field of research for young scholars.
B. a scholar should always treat the subjects of his or her study in its entirety.
C. orderly study is based on the principle that a whole is the sum of its parts.
D. teaching is one of the motivations for studying abstract ideas and theories.

My Choice: A
Kaplan's Choice: B

Kaplan's Justification: Paragraph 5 contains the author's precept that each "difficulty" should be divided into smaller parts in order to better understand and resolve it, so answer choice B is correct. A is FUD, for the author mentions his own study of logic when he was younger but does not pronounce an opinion......

I think the scorer didn't read the word LEAST? The author would agree with B, and would disagree with A because he never gave an opinion. Should Kaplan be more careful here, or am i making a mistake?

===> B clearly contradicts the author's second [precept] which must be what the author least likely to agree with. It's better to devide them into smaller parts than teaching a whole vast field of logics. A has nothing to do what the author agrees or disagrees (I don't have the WHOLE passage by the way). He doesn't say it is an INAPPROPRIATE field, does he? For these questions, find the most relevant answers that counter the author's.

Reading through this, I realized I may be interpreting the word 'entirety' differently that how the article expects. If by 'entirety' it means 'whole' and by 'whole' it means 'undivided', then yes, B would be the option the author would LEAST agree with.

If by considering an idea in its 'entirety' is the same thing as considering an idea "thoroughly" (IE: You have examined every aspect of the idea entirely) then I would say you are following precept two.

Now that I think about it, though, (and use a dictionary):

en·tire·ty
/enˈtī(&#60😉rtē/
Noun
The whole of something.
Synonyms
totality - whole - integrity - wholeness - completeness

it appears that your explanation is likely more valid than mine.

 

[TieuBachHo]

So, what you're saying is that B is invalid because the text states "rationalize" not "justify", and as such this is a distortion (because there is no softener).

and A is valid because of the softener?

Question 56:
You can "rationalize" thing, but it's still not "justified". Pertaining to the passage, I think of it as "rationalizing is trying to reason, but justifying is to accept.". "The legal channels" statement is also a trick to throw you off. The author didn't say to rationalize vices through legal channels but to closely monitor them. He/she uses legal channels for comparision. Vices can be rationalized through laws but that's not the author's attitude towards it.
For A: "... deductive flaws in logic"? Where did the author mention that? Besides, that's not his/her attitude towards vices.