<p>I just did the SAT online practice test #1 and I’m kind of confused about question #7 in section 5 (CR). It’s a short passage question.</p>
<p>Because I’m not really sure if I’m allowed to post the passages because of copyright issues, I’ll just summarize them.</p>
<p>Passage 1 says that, although scientists differentiate between things being “scientific”(explainable by science) and “irrational” , but “there are some truths science cannot measure.”</p>
<p>Passage 2 begins with an anecdote about the neurologist James Austin suddenly reaching spiritual enlightenment after training in Buddhist meditative practices. He claimed that, in that moment, he sensed absolute reality, intrinsic rightness, and ultimate perfection from his surroundings. “This experience spurred him to study brain processes that underlie spiritual experiences.” The passage concluded by noting how science doesn’t take people who study mysticism seriously.</p>
<p>The question was:</p>
<p>James Austin would most likely respond to the assertion in lines 6-7 of Passage 1 (life is a far richer tapestry than the threads of logic alone can weave.) by</p>
<p>(A) agreeing and citing his own experience as evidence
(B) agreeing and citing specific scientific findings as proof
(C) declining to offer an opinion either way
(D) disagreeing and citing the beliefs of most scientists
(E) disagreeing and citing Buddhist texts for support </p>
<p>The correct answer is “A”. I chose “C”.</p>
<p>My question is, if James Austin decided to go and study “the brain processes that underlie spiritual experiences,” wouldn’t he think that his spiritual experience is in fact explainable by logic? Thus, wouldn’t “A” be incorrect?</p>
<p>James Austin had a spiritual experience that opened up his eyes to life. He realized science doesn’t take many things in life into account or seriously. He realized, therefore, that life is richer than science and logic. Since his experience made him realize this, he would agree with the statement “life is a far richer tapestry than the threads of logic alone can weave” citing his own own experience as evidence. Don’t think of “evidence” as scientific proof; his experience made something evident, so it is evidence.</p>
<p>It is not (C) because he has an opinion. He agrees with the statement.</p>
<p>
The question asks how James Austin would respond to the statement “life is a far richer tapestry than the threads of logic alone can weave.” His agreement does not imply that he thinks life cannot be explained by logic. He is saying that experiencing something that may or may not be explained by logic (in this case it may be explained by logic) is much richer than merely trying to explain life by logic. He probably thinks the experience was richer than his scientific studies of that experience. He wanted to study brain processes to further learn about his experience.</p>
<p>awww you got me all hyped for nothing.
Will I ever get to read another SAT reading passage?</p>
<p>OK from what you gave me, I would say this:</p>
<p>“life is by far a richer tapestry than the threads of logic alone can weave” (wow what a line)
is not disproven by the explanation of the formerly inexplicable. Just because James Austin can now describe patterns of brain waves generated during spiritual enlightenment does not mean that he now considers life’s mysterious phenomena and logic with no riders attached equally rich.</p>
<p>I havn’t read either passage (thanks to you) but if passage 2 starts as an anecdote and never transitions into a passage of some other form, then it could very well be that passage 2 is from a biography that merely delineates Austin’s life and accomplishments and not that “Austin was so crazy about Buddhist enlightenment, but he was a neurologist who felt the need to reconcile with science, so he went about researching brain waves patterns during enlightenment strictly for the purpose of making enlightenment consistent with science.”</p>