rishisb
Thanks Received: 0
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 29
Joined: February 28th, 2010
 
 
 

Passage Discussion

by rishisb Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:01 pm

Hello, Atlas:

I’d be interested in hearing your response to the following concerns:

Initially, when I read this passage, I was taken aback by what I perceived to be a gap in reasoning in the last paragraph. There, in lines 41-44, the author gives an account of how high-prices in special, prized types of tulips can translate into an overall, price increase for tulips in general.

But, I did not -- and still do not-- see where or how the author connects the first claim (i.e: that special tulips are costly) with the claim that tulip prizes can be jacked up across-the-board, even for non-prized tulips. Although the author connects the claims with the word "thus", an explanation of that connection is never given.

That flustered me. When I did the passage for the first time, I stopped in my tracks and got worried that I had missed something. So, I re-scanned the passage _ and, well, wasted time.

I’m wondering if: (1) The authors of the LSAT sometimes leave gaps of reasoning in RC passages to sidetrack students; and (2) what can I do next time to not get worried that I missed something if I see a reasoning-gap in the passage? Am I to expect gaps in reasoning?

Atlas LSAT rocks!
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Passage Discussion

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:43 am

I think you're misreading lines 41-45. In these lines the author does not claim that high prices for some tulip bulbs can translate into high prices in general.

The author is sort of saying the reverse, but not exactly. The author is saying that because tulips were becoming popular in general and certain bulbs in particular were becoming even more popular, that this could have led to the dramatic price rises of some types of tulip bulbs.

But more to your question about whether the LSAT writers intentionally leave gaps in RC passages for you to analyze and evaluate. The answer is not generally. While logical reasoning should be read with a cautious and skeptical eye, reading comprehension should be read for a clear sense of the scale and a clear organization of the passage.

I hope that helps clear things up!