This question is confusing to me. Answer choice D is correct but I feel that it doesn't actually present the primary purpose.
I agree with the first part of choice D: "criticize one school of thought's definition of a certain concept" but I don't see how the second part "by providing examples that illustrate the implications..." is completely relevant.
The author does use two examples (ozone in paragraph 1 and the communities in paragraph 2 and 3), but is the author really using these examples, with their corresponding implications, as his form of criticism?
He seems to more that he is using them as examples to illustrate the sides of the conflict and elaborate on them.
From POE, I was left with A, B, and D. I crossed off D for the reason above, crossed off B because the author does more than just "summaries and illustrate," and very hesitantly chose A, despite that I felt it was too strong (although the examples do show some potentially detrimental effects...but it doesn't seem like it's a "conflict").
Any help or thoughts would be greatly appreciated for why D is wrong, and what else makes A, B wrong.
Thanks
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- cyruswhittaker
-
Thanks Received: 107
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 246
- Joined: August 11th, 2010
- Most Thanked
- First Responder
-
- giladedelman
-
Thanks Received: 833
- LSAT Geek
- Posts: 619
- Joined: April 04th, 2010
- This post thanked 4 times.
Re: PT 46, S1, Q 7, "The primary purpose..."
Thanks for your post!
It's clear that the central debate here is between defining prosperity solely in monetary terms, on the one hand, and including other less easily quantifiable factors, on the other. It's equally clear that the author weighs in completely on the latter side. So we can be confident that the "primary purpose of the passage" has something to do with arguing against the former position and/or in favor of the latter.
That observation alone allows us to eliminate three answers.
(A) is incorrect, but not because it's too strong. Rather, it doesn't include the fact that the author is clearly arguing against defining prosperity solely in monetary terms. Furthermore, it's not the conflict between the two viewpoints that's detrimental, it's one of the viewpoints in particular.
(B) is incorrect because, as you said, the author does more than summarize the conflict; he takes a side.
(E) is way out of scope. There's nothing in the passage that corresponds to "the exclusive territory of another school of thought."
So we're left with (C) and (D). Now, (C) is tempting, because the author does question one school of thought's definition of a concept. However, the author does NOT suggest several possible alternative definitions of that concept.
That leaves us with (D). Does the author criticize one school of thought's definition of prosperity? You bet. Does he do it "by providing examples that illustrate the implications of adhering to this definition"? Yeah! That's the whole point of his examples! Using that definition, he says, would lead us to think of ozone degradation as increasing prosperity. In the case of the rural community, adherence to the monetary definition led them to make choices that negatively impacted their overall prosperity. So the examples manifestly attack the economists' position by showing how adopting it would lead to negative consequences. They do not merely illustrate the two sides of the debate.
Does that make sense?
It's clear that the central debate here is between defining prosperity solely in monetary terms, on the one hand, and including other less easily quantifiable factors, on the other. It's equally clear that the author weighs in completely on the latter side. So we can be confident that the "primary purpose of the passage" has something to do with arguing against the former position and/or in favor of the latter.
That observation alone allows us to eliminate three answers.
(A) is incorrect, but not because it's too strong. Rather, it doesn't include the fact that the author is clearly arguing against defining prosperity solely in monetary terms. Furthermore, it's not the conflict between the two viewpoints that's detrimental, it's one of the viewpoints in particular.
(B) is incorrect because, as you said, the author does more than summarize the conflict; he takes a side.
(E) is way out of scope. There's nothing in the passage that corresponds to "the exclusive territory of another school of thought."
So we're left with (C) and (D). Now, (C) is tempting, because the author does question one school of thought's definition of a concept. However, the author does NOT suggest several possible alternative definitions of that concept.
That leaves us with (D). Does the author criticize one school of thought's definition of prosperity? You bet. Does he do it "by providing examples that illustrate the implications of adhering to this definition"? Yeah! That's the whole point of his examples! Using that definition, he says, would lead us to think of ozone degradation as increasing prosperity. In the case of the rural community, adherence to the monetary definition led them to make choices that negatively impacted their overall prosperity. So the examples manifestly attack the economists' position by showing how adopting it would lead to negative consequences. They do not merely illustrate the two sides of the debate.
Does that make sense?
2 posts Page 1 of 1