Hello,
What I'm confused in this passage is...
When it says "irony" what does it mean? Why is it irony?
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ganbayou
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 213
- Joined: June 13th, 2015
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Passage Discussion
"Irony" is often used when someone achieves the opposite of what they were seeking/meaning.
For example, if it was cold outside and I went into a coffeeshop to warm up, it would be ironic if they had the A/C on so high that it was colder INSIDE than OUTSIDE.
The passage starts off by describing the looting of cultural artifacts.
In line 9, it says "because of the looting", we won't learn as much about this culture.
The author plays along with society's common response to this.
Line 13, "It has been natural to CONDEMN this pillaging (looting)".
(laws/doctrines have been made that would prohibit this looting in the future)
Line 26, "Accordingly, it seems reasonable" that Mali should have final say over the cultural artifacts found on its soil.
So we're TRYING to learn more about the Mali culture, which looters (in line 9) took from us.
We attempt to protect future cultural knowledge by making laws that ban this looting and give full legal control to the host country.
Ironically, we end up with the opposite of what we were trying to achieve.
These laws (regulations) that ban looting and give full control to Mali can discourage recording and preserving information about cultural antiquities.
Backfire!
We were trying to get more of the knowledge mentioned in 9-10,
but our action backfires and discourages the recording and preserving of this type of knowledge.
For example, if it was cold outside and I went into a coffeeshop to warm up, it would be ironic if they had the A/C on so high that it was colder INSIDE than OUTSIDE.
The passage starts off by describing the looting of cultural artifacts.
In line 9, it says "because of the looting", we won't learn as much about this culture.
The author plays along with society's common response to this.
Line 13, "It has been natural to CONDEMN this pillaging (looting)".
(laws/doctrines have been made that would prohibit this looting in the future)
Line 26, "Accordingly, it seems reasonable" that Mali should have final say over the cultural artifacts found on its soil.
So we're TRYING to learn more about the Mali culture, which looters (in line 9) took from us.
We attempt to protect future cultural knowledge by making laws that ban this looting and give full legal control to the host country.
Ironically, we end up with the opposite of what we were trying to achieve.
These laws (regulations) that ban looting and give full control to Mali can discourage recording and preserving information about cultural antiquities.
Backfire!
We were trying to get more of the knowledge mentioned in 9-10,
but our action backfires and discourages the recording and preserving of this type of knowledge.
2 posts Page 1 of 1