Q21

[tchen7292]

Hi folks - slightly late to the party,

I regularly get these "Organization of the Passage" type questions wrong, despite regularly reviewing topics on similar questions here. Can someone clarify this question for me?

In my mind, (A) and (B) are far too similar to convincingly eliminate 1 choice 100%.

I like to first pre-phrase these types of questions in my mind:
1 - Introduction of a theory and one person's work around the theory
2 - Uses examples to apply the theory
3 - Discussion of how theory is slightly wrong, but useful anyway

A) thesis is offered (yes), specific cases are considered (yes - Tory/Whig), evaluation given (yes - last paragraph discusses the problem with Jefferson, but recognizes theory is still important).
B) thesis brought forward (again, yes), thesis qualified (yes - as discussed through the cases), evidence that brings up an issue is brought forward(yes - there is a problem with establishing the dichotomy and trying to pigeon-hole Jefferson into it, as well as the unnecessary ranking of vocabularies)

[ohthatpatrick]

Better late than never. The cops already showed up and chased most of the people away.

Your pre-phrase is spot-on.

I think you're only struggling with A vs. B because you're unfamiliar with the use of the word "qualified", as it's used on LSAT.

Don't think 'qualified' as in, you're qualified for a job. It does NOT mean to support something. It actually means to go against something somewhat.

Statement:
"I hate tangy white condiments" (like mayo, sour cream, tartar sauce, etc.)

Qualified statement
"I hate tangy white condiments, except for tzaziki sauce".

Statement:
"That movie was terrible!"

Qualified statement
"That movie was terrible, although the actor who played the daughter was wonderful."

A 'qualification' is like an exception, a caveat. So to qualify a thesis is to limit its scope or point out a case/sense in which it doesn't apply.

So the 2nd paragraph definitely does not qualify the thesis. It illustrates the thesis by means of zooming in on England. Since there's no qualification, there's no way for the 3rd paragraph to push back against the qualification (which would mean the same thing as pushing FOR what was said in the 1st paragraph).

Does that make sense?

== wrong answers ==
(B) the 2nd paragraph does not qualify (limit the scope or relevance of) the thesis

(C) the 2nd paragraph doesn't give examples that the thesis is incorrect.

(D) Does any of this work? The 2nd paragraph is definitely not concrete reasons being put forward. And there's no future direction of research proposed.

(E) The middle ingredient is a terrible match for the 2nd paragraph.
(B)

[tchen7292]

A 'qualification' is like an exception, a caveat. So to qualify a thesis is to limit its scope or point out a case/sense in which it doesn't apply.

Thank you - that makes perfect sense. Although, I'm not really thrilled by this question given the multiple meanings for "qualify".