If (C) is right on this question, why wouldn't (A) be right on #16? I understand both questions as correct independently, but when I view them together I get a bit confused.
If a close analytic reading is appropriate ONLY WHEN it is authored independently, wouldn't the author be more than just "skeptical of the value" of close analytical reading in edited-autobiographies? Wouldn't the author be "adamantly opposed" to it?
Hmmmmmm
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- WaltGrace1983
-
Thanks Received: 207
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 837
- Joined: March 30th, 2013
- Most Thanked
- Most Thankful
- First Responder
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q19
Yeah, I see what you're saying.
Naturally, we're probably skeptical ourselves when we read (A) because of how strong "adamantly opposed" is. We need CLEAR textual support to feel alright picking something so extreme.
I agree that they could have amped up the adjective in (B) to something stronger than skeptical, but it's still the "best description" of the available answer choices.
The difference between (A) and (B) is not just degree of attitude.
(A) is talking about "applying literary analysis"
(B) is talking about "a close analytical reading"
==============
For anyone curious about how to get the answer to Q19, realize when we see "According to the passage" that this is a fact-retrieval type question. Find the keywords in the question stem, and then go find them in the passage.
Line 57 is where we find 'close analytic reading' and where we get our support for (C).
==============
Now to those of us not pursuing our doctorate in lit studies (i.e. the lucky ones), we probably have almost no idea how those two differ.
But that's why we have to use line references to prove/disprove these.
I would knock out (A) because 'literary analysis' is used in line 12, and the author is alright with it.
The author basically says literary analysis is okay, but we should treat it like a text that was ghostwritten, not like an autobiography.
'Close analytic reading', meanwhile is only brought up in the final paragraph, and that's where the author draws a line in the sand.
So (A) is wrong because it's really kind of contradicting what the author said.
(B) is right because it's at least in the direction of how the author felt (if not strongly enough).
Hope this helps.
Naturally, we're probably skeptical ourselves when we read (A) because of how strong "adamantly opposed" is. We need CLEAR textual support to feel alright picking something so extreme.
I agree that they could have amped up the adjective in (B) to something stronger than skeptical, but it's still the "best description" of the available answer choices.
The difference between (A) and (B) is not just degree of attitude.
(A) is talking about "applying literary analysis"
(B) is talking about "a close analytical reading"
==============
For anyone curious about how to get the answer to Q19, realize when we see "According to the passage" that this is a fact-retrieval type question. Find the keywords in the question stem, and then go find them in the passage.
Line 57 is where we find 'close analytic reading' and where we get our support for (C).
==============
Now to those of us not pursuing our doctorate in lit studies (i.e. the lucky ones), we probably have almost no idea how those two differ.
But that's why we have to use line references to prove/disprove these.
I would knock out (A) because 'literary analysis' is used in line 12, and the author is alright with it.
The author basically says literary analysis is okay, but we should treat it like a text that was ghostwritten, not like an autobiography.
'Close analytic reading', meanwhile is only brought up in the final paragraph, and that's where the author draws a line in the sand.
So (A) is wrong because it's really kind of contradicting what the author said.
(B) is right because it's at least in the direction of how the author felt (if not strongly enough).
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1