I don't know how to attack this question....
I chose E
Please help.
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- jionggangtu
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 21
- Joined: February 20th, 2012
-
- maryadkins
-
Thanks Received: 641
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: March 23rd, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q19
We're asked which would weaken the author's argument on RRT. First, what is the author's argument on RRT? He (or she) likes it. He/she thinks formalism is too narrow (line 20) and that a rich stock of meanings is good (line 38). Then the last paragraph is all about why he thinks it's good.
(A) is consistent with his argument that RRT is good. Out!
(B) is correct. The author thinks that RRT enables new understandings of the work and that the goal is for the work to be understood (lines 34 and 57). If the new interpretations diminish the overall understanding, the argument is much weaker.
(C) wouldn't bother the author. He or she isn't arguing that it presents a unified view.
(D) is already true in the passage.
(E) is also already true. RRT allows interpretations that go beyond just what the author intended, which is what formalism does (line 29 and after).
Hope this helps.
(A) is consistent with his argument that RRT is good. Out!
(B) is correct. The author thinks that RRT enables new understandings of the work and that the goal is for the work to be understood (lines 34 and 57). If the new interpretations diminish the overall understanding, the argument is much weaker.
(C) wouldn't bother the author. He or she isn't arguing that it presents a unified view.
(D) is already true in the passage.
(E) is also already true. RRT allows interpretations that go beyond just what the author intended, which is what formalism does (line 29 and after).
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1