Tutoring someone on MCAT CARS problem

I helped someone (I'll use a fake name, Jake) with an MCAT CARS problem. We talked over the phone while using a google doc. I copied the google doc contents here and I added stuff from memory of our voice discussion (and I guess I forgot to include some relevant discussion).

He talked about doing some practice tests where he didn't finish the CARS section because he was too slow. He also said he's bad at reading comprehension. I explained that when I took the test I intentionally went relatively slow when doing that section of the MCAT test such that I didn't have time for an entire passage and it's set of questions. I told him that I was also bad at reading comprehension when I took the MCAT and that I've improved my skills some but not much compared to other people. 

I recommended that he use outlining of sentences to help improve his reading comprehension and that we do it together. He asked me what outlining is, what the point of it is, and how to do it. I explained that outlining is a way to meticulously figure out the structure of a sentence (as opposed to using only intuition). I explained that practicing outlining would help him improve his intuitions that produce his interpretations of sentences. I explained that practicing outlining sentences by writing helps one build the ability to do it in one's head, similar to how people used to write out arithmetic and now they can do it in their head. I asked if he's satisfied with my answer for his 2 questions about what outlining is and what the point of it is. He said yes.

He said that the MCAT practice book he's uses talks about outlining, and he described it to be about outlining the whole passage, pointing out that it's different than what I'm talking about. I said that I was talking about outlining a sentence. I said that the whole passage could have an outline and that we could put outlines of sentences within it. So we could have outlines within outlines within outlines.

He quoted a passage from his practice MCAT test.

> Passage 1 (Questions 1 - 6)

> The course will deal with linguistics proper, not with languages and language. This science has gone through phases with shortcomings. Three phases may be distinguished, or three successive approaches adopted by those who took a language as an object of study. Later on came a linguistics proper, aware of its object.

I don’t know what the first sentence means so i’ll use an outlining method to help.

The course (which course? don’t know yet) will deal with X (in the future hasn’t happened yet), not with Y and Z. 

X = linguistics proper

Y = languages

Z = language

Jake quoted analysis from his MCAT practice book:

> Contrast: linguistics proper vs languages and language

Rami’s best interpretation of that is:

Contrast: X vs Y and Z

The course will deal with X, not with Y and Z.

I said that better writing would try to avoid future references. Back references are easier to deal with. Using back references instead of future references requires the reader to hold fewer variables in his head while interpreting text. I recommended that we move on to see if things will be explained later in the passage.

> The first of these phases is that of grammar, invented by the Greeks and carried on unchanged by the French. It never had any philosophical view of a language as such. That's more the concern of logic. All traditional grammar is normative grammar, that is, dominated by a preoccupation with laying down rules, and distinguishing between a certain allegedly 'correct' language and another, allegedly 'incorrect'; which straight away precludes any broader view of the language phenomenon as a whole.

So this paragraph talks about 3 phases of study of language.

    - The first phase was about grammar rules rather than philosophical study.

> Later and only at the beginning of the 19th century, if we are talking of major movements (and leaving out the precursors, the 'philological' school at Alexandria), came the great philological movement of classical philology, carrying on down to our own day. In 1777, Friedrich Wolf, as a student, wished to be enrolled as a philologist. Philology introduced a new principle: the method of critical examination of texts. 

Note the: "Philology introduced a new principle: the method of critical examination of texts." 

A1 introduced a new principle: the method of critical examination of Y. A1 = philology

A2 is the method of critical examination of Z.

A1 is a special case of A2. do you agree? [Jake agreed.]

Y is a subset of the superset Z.

Method of critical examination = Method of ruling out hypothesized theories with criticism = the reason method

What is the scientific method?

Method of critical examination of physical reality = Method of ruling out hypothesized empirical/scientific theories with criticism (and some of those criticisms reference empirical data) = the reason method applied to scientific theories

The method

1. Describe the problem in detail. Quote the text.

2. Brainstorm multiple possible interpretations of the meaning of the text. One such interpretation might be an intuition that happened immediately.

3. Creatively criticize the interpretations.

1. Creatively criticize the criticisms

1. Creatively criticize those criticisms.

1. Keep going until you can’t think of any more criticisms.

4. The result should be one interpretation that has no criticisms that survived criticism -- which means that that one interpretation survived criticism. 

I clarified that my description is not great and that there are better ways to describe this written by people who understand this stuff better than I do.

> The language was just one of the many objects coming within the sphere of philology, and consequently subjected to this criticism. Henceforth, language studies were no longer directed merely towards correcting grammar. The critical principle demanded an examination, for instance, of the contribution of different periods, thus to some extent embarking on historical linguistics. Ritschl's revision of the text of Plautus may be considered the work of a linguist. In general, the philological movement opened up countless sources relevant to linguistic issues, treating them in quite a different spirit from traditional grammar; for instance, the study of inscriptions and their language. But not yet in the spirit of linguistics.

I think the above paragraph talks about the second phase. 

- I don't understand how it's differentiated from the first phase besides the claim that it's still not linguistics. 

     - I guess linguistics = philology. 

        - So I guess the second phase does not do critical examination of languages.

> A third phase in which this spirit of linguistics is still not evident: this is the sensational phase of discovering that languages could be compared with one another; that a bond or relationship existed between languages often separated geographically by great distances; that, as well as languages, there were also great language families, in particular the one which came to be called the Indo-European family.

The above paragraph talks about the 3rd phase. 

- It differentiates the previous phases from the 3rd phase by saying that in the 3rd phase, different languages were compared with one another.

> Surprisingly, there was never a more flawed or absurd idea of what a language is than during the thirty years that followed this discovery by Bopp (1816). In fact, from then on scholars engaged in a kind of game of comparing different Indo-European languages with one another, and eventually they could not fail to wonder what exactly these connections showed, and how they should be interpreted in concrete terms. Until nearly 1870, they played this game without any concern for the conditions affecting the life of a language.

Rami: didn’t understand this paragraph = I don’t have a non-refuted interpretation of this paragraph = i’m not sure what this paragraph means

Jake quotes from the MCAT practice book: 

> Cause and effect: discovering the Indo-European family of languages caused scholars to compare languages with each other in a “flawed,” “absurd” way

Rami reply to Jake: but it doesn’t explain the flaw. So i think the more honest answer is: i don’t know what it means.

Rami: but maybe the next paragraph explains the flaw.

> This very prolific phase, which produced many publications, differs from its predecessors by focussing attention on a great number of languages and the relations between them, but, just like its predecessors, has no linguistic perspective [1], or at least none which is correct, acceptable and reasonable. It is purely comparative [2]. You cannot altogether condemn the more or less hostile attitude of the philological tradition towards the comparativists, because the latter did not in fact bring any renewal bearing on the principles themselves, none which in practice immediately opened up any new horizons, and with which they can clearly be credited. When was it recognised that comparison is, in short, only a method to employ when we have no more direct way of ascertaining the facts [3], and when did comparative grammar give way to a linguistics which included comparative grammar and gave it a new direction?

[1] Rami: what does “linguistic perspective” mean?

[2] Rami: I don’t know why this is a problem or a flaw.

[3] Rami: I think the author is differentiating between the 3rd phase doing only comparing and the linguistics/philology phase doing comparing and contrasting.

Jake seemed to agree with me and asked how I figured that out because he had no clue.

I said that the paragraph mentioned a new direction and it involved ascertaining facts, contrasting that against comparative grammar study. So I guessed that ascertaining facts was related to the "method of critical examination of texts" (philology). I said that facts are things that are objective, meaning that they can be found to be wrong. We do that with criticism. So I think the author is differentiating between methods that only compare things and methods that compare and contrast things.

What does comparing and contrasting mean? And how does that connect with the previous thing the essay talked about (“Philology introduced a new principle: the method of critical examination of texts.”)? 

Consider the scientific method and scientific theories.

Consider two scientific theories that both try to explain the same thing.

• We can compare and contrast them.

• We can compare them to find out where they agree

• Regarding the points that the 2 theories agree, you can’t use them to figure out which one is wrong (note that both could be wrong). 

• We can contrast them to find out where they disagree

• Regarding the points that the 2 theories disagree, you can use them to figure out which one is wrong (note that both could be wrong).

• We can design an experiment that could differentiate between these 2 theories. 

• How? Note that scientific theories imply empirical predictions. So we can design an experiment such that the experimental result will agree with one theory and disagree with the other theory. 

Similar logic applies to non-scientific theories too:

• We can compare them to find out where they agree

• Regarding the points that the 2 theories agree, you can’t use them to figure out which one is wrong (note that both could be wrong). 

• We can contrast them to find out where they disagree

• Regarding the points that the 2 theories disagree, you can use them to figure out which one is wrong (note that both could be wrong).

• We can create a criticism that could differentiate between these 2 theories. 

• How? Note that theories imply other ideas (theories). So we can create a criticism that will agree with one theory and disagree with the other theory. 

So again, the scientific method is a special case of the reason method. 

Then we worked on the questions.

1. Based on the passage, critical examinations of texts are the province of:

1. philology. [Jake: this is the correct answer. Rami: agreed]

2. comparativists.

3. logic.

4. Grammar.

2. It can be inferred from the passage that the Indo-European language family is defined by:

Rami's interpretation of the question: The following can be inferred from the passage. [The Indo-European language family] [is] [defined by:

1. links between a number of languages based on factors other than location.]

2. connections based on historical conditions such as war and migration.]

3. a traditional and normative grammar that lays down the rules as to acceptable language use.]

4. a flawed belief that it is possible to compare and connect distinct languages for any purpose.] [a language or family of languages can't be defined by a belief. note: a particular kind of *study of languages* could be defined by beliefs.]

[The Indo-European language family] [is] [defined by (a, b, c, or d)].

X is defined by Y.

X = The Indo-European language family

Ya = links between a number of languages based on factors other than location. [so, location was not one of the factors. Not sure yet. Need to review the text. Come back later. Reviewed it. This agrees with the text. After refuting Yb, that leaves only Ya as the only theory that survived criticism. It is the non-refuted theory. It is the theory that is true as far as we know, and it’s a rational conclusion in the sense that we used a rational process to create the conclusion.]

Yb = connections based on historical conditions such as war and migration [not sure. come back later after reviewing the passage. Reviewed it. The text didn’t say anything at all about war or migration. So this is a criticism of Yb.]

Yc = a traditional and normative grammar that lays down the rules as to acceptable language use. [a language or family of languages can’t be defined by grammar. Note that the study of languages can be defined by that. So this is a criticism of Yc. So now we have Yc refuted, and Ya, Yb, and Yd we’re still not sure about.]

Jake quoted from the MCAT practice book: 

> Grammar was the focus of the stage before philology and the emphasis on Indo-European languages.

Rami in reply to the book quote: I think that makes the mistake of talking about a type of study of languages, rather than talking about languages themselves. And I think Yc is talking about languages themselves, not the a kind of study of languages.

Yd = a flawed belief that it is possible to compare and connect distinct languages for any purpose. So Yd is refuted. That leaves only Ya, Yb, or Yc left to consider.

Do you agree that X and Y should be of the same type? yes

How can a language be defined by a belief? It can’t. So d is wrong.

Then we reviewed the passage to figure out Ya and Yb. I included my thinking on this in brackets in Ya and Yb. 

--- meta problem ----

Jake: [said something like that he blames himself for not learning this stuff already.]

Rami: why don't you blame your school teachers instead?

Jake: I hate that they didn’t teach this in school.

Rami: they don't know about these methods.

Rami: hating it means being focussed on the past instead of the future. One should only look at the past to the extent that one needs to in order to figure out what to do in the future.

---------------------------

3. The author assumes which of the following about obtaining a broad view of language?

1. The more that scholars compare languages to each other, the further the study of linguistics develops. [Rami: false cuz no contrasting.]

2. Normative grammars are only interested in figuring out and enforcing certain rules and their enactment. [Rami: agree so far. Jake: disagree. It doesn’t explain what broad view is and instead it only talks about what a narrow view is. Rami: i concede. This answer is refuted.]

3. Focusing on rules and what is or isn’t proper prevents a holistic understanding of how language works. [Rami: agrees so far.] 

4. Ritschl's revision of the text of Plautus is a prime example of the best technique for procuring this view. [Rami: details that don’t say anything broad. Refuted. Only a survived criticism, so it's the non-refuted answer, the rest are refuted.]

   
   

Our answers agreed with the conclusions of the MCAT practice book.

There were 3 more questions for this passage but Jake wanted to stop so he could work on other stuff related to the MCAT test.

I reiterated that the stuff I explained is not very good. There are people who explain this stuff better and could easily point out flaws with what I said (not just flaws in my writing but also flaws in my understanding of the ideas).

I also explained that none of what I talked about explains how to do self-evaluation. I explained that when he is a doctor, he'll need to self-evaluate. He can't rely on other people to make his diagnoses. Like if he asked the opinion of another doctor, he would still have to self-evaluate that opinion. He can't just believe it on the authority of that doctor. I explained that he will have lives in his hands and also that if something goes wrong, you can't blame the other doctor for giving you a wrong opinion that you blindly accepted on faith because you failed to self-evaluate it. I also said that if you get sued, it's you who has to pay, not the other doctor who gave you a wrong opinion.

[I realize now that I may or may not have said: Also the other doctors' opinion could have been right and if you failed to self-evaluate it correctly, you could have misunderstood him and then adopted a wrong interpretation of his opinion.]

I also explained that I'm a novice at self-evaluation so I'm not a good person for him to learn that from. There are better people to learn this kinda thing from.

After this session Jake communicated that after taking the MCAT test, he wants to learn epistemology. I told him that I can help but that I'm a novice myself. I recommended that he learn from the people I'm trying to learn all this stuff from -- Elliot Temple and the other FI people. I will be recommending the Fallible Ideas Learning Plan.

Regarding the outlining sentences method that I explained above, I learned about it a long time ago and I'm not sure exactly who I learned it from. I bet it was Elliot Temple but it could have been somebody else who regularly participated on the BOI email list about 9 or 10 years ago.