Passage Discussion

[WaltGrace1983]

Whoa! While I got my accuracy down on this one, this passage definitely had some confusing elements and I definitely had a take a few extra seconds to understand some confusing phrases! I'll go through my own thoughts on this passage and hopefully someone can chime in and tell me what I got right and wrong.

Paragraph 1: Developing viewpoints of French Impressionism: style vs. subject; Herbert's emphasis on subject isn't persuasive

*Rewald likes style
*Herbert likes subject


Paragraph 2: First reason why Herbert isn't persuasive: redrawn traditional boundaries

*Emphasis on (possibly misrepresentative) painters and genres

Note: I took note of the word "because" in 30 and it paid off. I have been trying to note cause and effect relationships from the advice of another LSAT taker and I think it is definitely something worthwhile. Question 23 was easily found because of my note.


Paragraph 3: Second reason why Herbert isn't persuasive: he undermines the whole point of impressionism

*Impressionist painters were all about "invention" rather than simply representation

Note: "Moreover" seems to be a key word here. Could it be that it is merely signaling to the reader, "Hey! I have yet another point to support my thesis!"

Now here is my problem. That last sentence, "no art historian can afford to emphasize one at the expense of another," really threw me for a loop. Now I suspected that the entire passage was about how Herbert's argument is unpersuasive (I think #21 and #25 might back up this idea). However, it also seems like, within this sentence, the author developed a brand new viewpoint. This would be that we shouldn't interpret impressionist art by pure style or pure subject - we need to understand these paintings from the context of both style and subject.

Is that what is happening here?

Now I guess this doesn't exactly contradict the idea that Herbert's argument is not persuasive but it certainly makes me wonder if I got the scale all wrong. Would an RC passage just slap a brand new conclusion onto the final paragraph in the final sentence?! It seems unlikely. Regardless, I continually go back and forth between what the main point is.

Can someone help me out with deciphering this very final thought of the passage?

[ohthatpatrick]

Great dissection!!

I think you nailed the big points and points of view in each paragraph.

If you thought the scale was
"just look at style" vs. "just look at subject matter"
with Rewald on the former side and Herbert on the latter, then, yes, I think you'd want to revise your scale a little.

The author won't be found on either side of that scale. Of course, the scale is just a reading tool. You don't HAVE to assign a scale to a passage, nor does the author HAVE to be on that scale. For your purposes, maybe it's helpful to divide up the passage into the "style" vs. "subject matter" and then understand that the author rejects both and chooses a third position.

(If you look for the RC psg. on impartiality / voir dire, you'll see a similar Side A vs. Side B debate in which the author ultimately chooses a 3rd option that isn't expressed by either side. You can either redefine your scale in opposition to the author's point or you can just live with knowing that the author isn't choosing either side of the scale)

It doesn't matter whether you make a scale to fit the author's main point or whether you think the author's main point lives outside the predominant scale of the passage. Either way you slice it, it's still the same main point.

And like any LSAT main point, it needs to be supported (so, no, they're not gonna throw a brand new, unsupported main point in the last sentence).

The thrust of this passage was anti-Herbert. To me, line 21-22 was the Most Valuable Sentence. As soon as I reached that, I knew the author's purpose: to reject Herbert's analysis. The final two paragraphs provide supporting reasons for that line.

Main Point: "Herbert's preoccupation with the subject matter of Impressionist painters is no good."
Why?
- he cherry picks a weird group of debateably Impressionist artists to make his point ("redraws the boundaries" - topic sentence of the 2nd paragraph)
- he kinda contradicts himself by arguing that we should primarily focus on the subject matter of Impressionists while also saying that they didn't focus enough on putting forth the proper subject matter. ("the rationale for his emphasis is undermined by what he concedes" - topic sentence of the 3rd paragraph)

You're definitely right that any time a paragraph begins with "Moreover", we know that the author is continuing to support a bigger claim. It generally indicates that the paragraph we're about to read, as well as the one we just finished reading, both support the same thesis from the original paragraph.

I think the reason the last sentence of this passage can throw us for a loop is that we clearly see that the author is anti-Herbert. We're tempted to assume then that the author is pro-Rewald, since that's the opposing point of view presented. But the last sentence makes it sound like the author might be anti-Rewald too. After all, the author wouldn't be happy with emphasizing style at the expense of subject matter.

In reality, we can't accuse Rewald OR Herbert of ONLY dealing with style or subject matter. Each historian just emphasizes one or the other. The author, in the last sentence, merely cautions against focusing too much on either component, when both are important. Although it may feel like a new conclusion, you wouldn't treat it as such because it doesn't have supporting reasons offered.

Instead, we can understand it as a restatement of the conclusion we've already surmised: Author doesn't like Herbert's analysis. Why? In part, because it emphasizes subject matter at the expense of stylistic concerns.