LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 3 times.
Re: Q17
When RC question stems use words like ...
inferred
implies
suggests
most likely to agree
... the #1 thing to remind yourself of is,
"Watch out for strong/specific claims and unknown comparisons."
Our job is to pick the most provable, supportable answer, so weaker language is easier to support. Ultimately, we want to be able to point to which line(s) in the passage supports our answer (but in some cases, the answer is a little bit gist-y and would be hard to localize to one line)
1st pass (screen out unlikely contenders):
(A) Predicts a counterfactual? How would I support that?
(B) Causal connection between "using colors" and "the HC forming"?
(C) Oooh, super weak! "did not depend directly" sounds like correct answer wording.
(D) Maybe. Causal/comparative. Can't remember if that was there.
(E) Predicts a hypothetical/counterfactual? How would I support that?
So after a first pass, there weren't really any "freebies" that sounded way too strong, but (A) and (E) seem least likely to me, because they are predicting what would have happened if life HADN'T gone the way the passage described.
(C) was the most tempting language, so I would start by trying to research whether I can find supporting text for (C).
Indeed, we can support (C). It's actually resonating with the main thesis of the whole passage, on line 12-15.
We know that the religious stuff we hear in P2 was part of wampum's gradual development (an important precursor) into how wampum got used in P3, which at that point had nothing to do with religious stuff and instead had to do with the Confederacy's constitution.
=== other answers ===
(A) this goes against line 9, which credits European influence as the causal reason for wampum becoming currency.
(B) white and deep purple existed with spiritual meaning (in P2), long before the formation of the HC.
(D) Pretty reasonable sounding. Is there a line reference, though, that says that meaning of the beads drifted over time? It seems like we know that loose wampum (religious meaning) was different from string/belt wampum (political meaning), but we don't seem to have any lines saying that string wampum is different from belt wampum.
It sounds like belt wampum combined strings together to create new meanings, but just because 4 string wampum together on a belt means something new, that doesn't mean that "the same color beads" had one meaning on string and a different one on belt.
It's comparing apples and oranges to compare string wampum and belt wampum, because it sounds like the meaning on belt wampum came from combining strings together.
We're saying "one string" had meaning X, while "four strings put together on a belt" had meaning Y.
But this answer is saying the white bead on the string meant something different from the white bead on the belt.
(E) This is purely speculative. We can't get in the heads of whether Europeans would have still insisted on using wampum as currency.
inferred
implies
suggests
most likely to agree
... the #1 thing to remind yourself of is,
"Watch out for strong/specific claims and unknown comparisons."
Our job is to pick the most provable, supportable answer, so weaker language is easier to support. Ultimately, we want to be able to point to which line(s) in the passage supports our answer (but in some cases, the answer is a little bit gist-y and would be hard to localize to one line)
1st pass (screen out unlikely contenders):
(A) Predicts a counterfactual? How would I support that?
(B) Causal connection between "using colors" and "the HC forming"?
(C) Oooh, super weak! "did not depend directly" sounds like correct answer wording.
(D) Maybe. Causal/comparative. Can't remember if that was there.
(E) Predicts a hypothetical/counterfactual? How would I support that?
So after a first pass, there weren't really any "freebies" that sounded way too strong, but (A) and (E) seem least likely to me, because they are predicting what would have happened if life HADN'T gone the way the passage described.
(C) was the most tempting language, so I would start by trying to research whether I can find supporting text for (C).
Indeed, we can support (C). It's actually resonating with the main thesis of the whole passage, on line 12-15.
We know that the religious stuff we hear in P2 was part of wampum's gradual development (an important precursor) into how wampum got used in P3, which at that point had nothing to do with religious stuff and instead had to do with the Confederacy's constitution.
=== other answers ===
(A) this goes against line 9, which credits European influence as the causal reason for wampum becoming currency.
(B) white and deep purple existed with spiritual meaning (in P2), long before the formation of the HC.
(D) Pretty reasonable sounding. Is there a line reference, though, that says that meaning of the beads drifted over time? It seems like we know that loose wampum (religious meaning) was different from string/belt wampum (political meaning), but we don't seem to have any lines saying that string wampum is different from belt wampum.
It sounds like belt wampum combined strings together to create new meanings, but just because 4 string wampum together on a belt means something new, that doesn't mean that "the same color beads" had one meaning on string and a different one on belt.
It's comparing apples and oranges to compare string wampum and belt wampum, because it sounds like the meaning on belt wampum came from combining strings together.
We're saying "one string" had meaning X, while "four strings put together on a belt" had meaning Y.
But this answer is saying the white bead on the string meant something different from the white bead on the belt.
(E) This is purely speculative. We can't get in the heads of whether Europeans would have still insisted on using wampum as currency.
3 posts Page 1 of 1