Q24

[hanhansummer]

Could someone explain this question?

I choose B because I think the situation in Passage B illustrates the principle of rectification in Passage A. Line 56-57 says "Ideally, the land should be restored to its rightful owner". So I think this supports the rectification principle.

B seems reverse the relationship, compared to D. But why D is the right one?

Thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Remember that a principle is used to support the specific. So it typically doesn't make sense on the LSAT to use the a specific incident to support a principle. On the LSAT, it typically works the other way around. Furthermore a major issue with answer choice (B) is the word "purports." Answer choice (B) suggests that the author of passage B is aware of passage A, which is not true.

Hope that helps!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Question Type:
Purpose of Information

Answer Anticipation:
The second paragraph of passage B is supported by the principle in passage A.

Correct answer:
(D)

Answer Choice Analysis:

(A) is unsupported. The argument in passage B does not broaden the theory presented in passage A.

(B) is unsupported. Passage B is supported by passage A, not the other way around. Furthermore, the word "purports" suggests that passage B is aware of passage A, which is unsupported.

(C) is contradicted. The subject matter is the same.

(D) is correct. The principle in passage A supports the argument made in passage B.

(E) is contradicted. The argument in passage B is supported by the principle in passage A. In order to undermine the princple in passage A, the second paragraph of passage B would have needed to present a counterexample.


#officialexplanation

[PhoebeL747]

Remember that a principle is used to support the specific. So it typically doesn't make sense on the LSAT to use the a specific incident to support a principle. On the LSAT, it typically works the other way around.

But I can recall many RC articles do this: states a general theory then support its view by adding "for example"/ "for instance". I thought it works to support a general view/principle with specific examples too?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, you can definitely support a general statement with specific examples.

It's a little weirder (but still possible) to say you can support a principle with specific examples. Principles are general statements, but general statements aren't necessarily principles.

Principles are generalizations that deal with normative ideas like "should / ought / justified / unjustified".
Or they are otherwise just "If X, then Y" constructions.

Take a normative principle like, "You shouldn't lie to your mom."

If we ask 'why shouldn't you lie to your mom', would it make any sense to say
"Because .... last week George didn't lie to his mom."?

Not really. Reasons for believing the principle would sound more like "your Mom loves you more than anyone else / lying is a betrayal of trust / you should trust the ones you love".

Meanwhile, if we say
"It was good that last week George didn't lie to his mom"
and we ask, 'why was it good that he didn't lie?"
we could support that with the principle "you shouldn't lie to your mom".


Similarly, take an "if / then" principle like, "If it's raining, you shouldn't go to Disneyland."

If we ask "Why?", does it make sense to say that "Last week, it was raining and George didn't go to Disneyland" ?

Not really. Supporting that principle would sound more like, "Most of the rides are shut down during the rain".

Meanwhile, if we say
"It's going to rain on Thursday, so George is not going to go to Disneyland."
we ask 'why isn't he going to Disneyland?'
we can support that with the principle that "If it's raining, you shouldn't go to Disneyland."

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

So, again, you're totally right that if you make a generalization, such as "Trying too hard can often backfire", then telling a specific story can support that generalization by illustrating a time when someone tried too hard and it was to their detriment.

And if you have a normative principle like "You shouldn't try too hard", then telling a specific story where someone tried too hard and it backfired would support that principle.

It wouldn't support that principle though if we just said "Eddie tried too hard." You're only supporting the principle if you're giving a reason for why we SHOULDN'T try too hard.

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

My problem with (B) is mostly the messiness of ... "The argument made in passage A".

I didn't really feel like passage A's author was making an argument.
When she says, "What, if anything, should be done about past injustice" and then says "A principle of rectification would do X, Y, Z", I don't feel like she's committed herself to endorsing the principle of rectification plan.

And the verb 'purports' in the answer choice is basically saying that Psg B CLAIMS to be supporting the rectification principle, or it tries to make obvious that it's supporting the rectification principle. Psg B doesn't even demonstrate an awareness of the rectification principle, so it's a stretch to say that its 2nd paragraph "PURPORTS to support it".

Psg B's author DOES seem to present an argument in the 2nd paragraph. And if the rectification principle were true, it would TEND TO support the sort of conclusion the author of Psg B is drawing.

I think we could salvage (B) if we said
"the 2nd paragraph of psg B illustrates some parts of a theory presented in psg A".