Q26

[anum215]

I was between A and E on this and incorrectly chose E. My train of thought was that author introduces this objection then goes on to discuss how the impact of the law was greatest in South. Is E wrong because of the word "introduce" in the answer, since the impact of fed intervention on discrimination was discussed throughout the passage. Furthermore, is it even fair to assume that fed intervention means enactment of federal laws?

Thanks

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting this question anum215!

Inference questions that demand we determine the purpose of a particular phrase can be tricky! Let me attack this question whole:

To determine the purpose of a phrase, we must understand how it sits in relation to the surrounding text, the paragraph, etc. In the fourth paragraph, the author continues his argument against the continuity view. While you are correct that the author goes on to discuss the law's impact in the South, just because it comes after doesn't mean that introducing it is the purpose of the earlier statement.

Let's consider lines 53-71 as if it were an LR argument. How would we break down this core?

Opposing point: correlating fed. intervention with black econ. progress might be wrong; maybe changing attitudes caused both fed. intervention and black econ. progress.
Premise: law had the most impact in South, where attitudes hadn't changed.
Conclusion: coincidence of fed. intervention with black econ. progress argues against continuity theory

We wouldn't say that the purpose of an opposing point is to introduce the premise! But bringing up a potential criticism (opposing point), then undermining it (in this case, the premise does that), is a classic tactic to strengthen an argument (conclusion) overall. That's exactly what (A) hands to us.

It can also be helpful to realize that paragraphs 3 and 4 are focused on driving home the author's opinion, which is that the continuity theory has it wrong. So why is the author giving textual real estate to the enemy theory here? Because overall it serves his purpose, and makes his argument stronger.

Without Purpose
(B) no new factor is introduced
(C) the quote only says the correlation might be incorrect, and then follows it up with evidence that strongly suggests that it isn't. No point is conceded.
(D) the argument doesn't change, as this is followed by evidence suggesting the original argument is still correct, even despite this alternative viewpoint.
(E) the discussion about the impact of federal intervention as a general matter was introduced much earlier in the passage - in fact, that's what the entire passage is about!

Additionally, when an answer says that the purpose is to introduce X, that generally means that X is introduced in the phrase in question, rather than that the phrase set the stage for X to be introduced further along in the paragraph. Since this phrase is certainly not introducing the correlation (it was introduced in the sentence before!) this cannot be correct.


Finally, I think "federal intervention" can safely be understood to include "federal laws". There are other forms of federal intervention, to be sure, but federal laws would surely qualify.

Please let me know if this completely answers your questions!

[Sweetangel]

Hi Christine,

Could you please explain why B) is incorrect? The author does in fact introduce changing attitudes about employment discrimination as another factor that may have influenced both federal policies and economic progress. How can this answer be ruled out? The quote is placed directly before the introduction of the new factor, and so seems to act as a segue for it.

Thank you:)

[uhdang]

Hi Christine,

Could you please explain why B) is incorrect? The author does in fact introduce changing attitudes about employment discrimination as another factor that may have influenced both federal policies and economic progress. How can this answer be ruled out? The quote is placed directly before the introduction of the new factor, and so seems to act as a segue for it.

Thank you:)

What comes after line 59 with "changing attitudes" is what continuity theorists refer to as results or education improvement itself, which led to black economic progress. And this has already been introduced as a major disputing point in previous paragraphs. So, "introduce another factor" would be incorrect.

[olaizola.mariana]

uhdang, I'm afraid I don't see your point. The author mentions changing attitudes "about employment discrimination," which is not what the 'continuous change' theorists talked about. The only way that factor could be attributed to them is if one assumes that changing attitudes evolved slowly (line17). So, I am still not clear about why (B) is wrong.