Q11

[zainrizvi]

I'm a bit confused by the question. When it says the author is most likely to disagree, the correct answer has to contradict the passage right? So you can have possible unsupported choices that are consistent with the passage as a whole, and not be the incorrect answer?

[monster_omiga]

Can somebody help explain why (E) is correct and (B) is incorrect?


Thanks!

[eunjung.shin]

Can somebody help explain why (E) is correct and (B) is incorrect?


Thanks!

I was debating between the two as well. However, B is not mentioned so we know it doesnt contradict the passage. ( could be true and false answer) whereas E does contradict. If you look at lines 15-17, they saw the need to expand the def of what a source is to fet a full picture of culture's historical relationship to its land.


Hope this helps!

[Nina]

thanks for explanation, but i still don't quite get why E is the correct answer. to me it seems more like a "unsupported" one. because even if the first sentence states that some historiographers think there's a need to expand their definition of source, but the following sentence "they maintain that...the sources traditionally ...of the Pacific Coast" kind of conveys the message that they are only talking about what relates to "Pacific Coast", where there may have significant immigration of non-Europeans (Asians), but we don't know if this kind of source-expanding also applies to regions without significant immigration of non-Europeans.
...am I incorrectly inferring something here?

Many thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Nina, I would probably agree that (E) doesn't flat out contradict anything in the passage.

I think they want us to pick (E) as the one the author is most likely to disagree with based on the fact that he is likely to agree with the other four.

This goes back to the original poster's question: is this question saying that 4 things weren't mentioned and 1 thing contradicts? Or is it saying that 4 things were mentioned and 1 thing wasn't? Or a mix of the two?

To be honest, I would have expected 4 things NOT mentioned and 1 thing that contradicts (because that's how Must Be False usually works in LR).

But this set of ideas seems to be closer to 4 things that were mentioned and 1 thing that wasn't. And since the question stem is worded "most likely to disagree", it would still be fair to say that the author is more likely to disagree with the 1 thing not mentioned than he is to disagree with the 4 things we know he believes.

I am slightly oversimplifying the full extent of how supportable/unsupportable these answers are to make that point.

(A) is pretty supportable given that the 1st paragraph establishes that European settlers are also part of the historical record of the Pacific Coast.

(B) lines 15-17 and 29-32 give some decent support that not ALL historiographers are accustomed to considering the actions of Asian settlers as a type of source.

(C) is a lot like (A) insofar as we know that Asian setters are only part of the story. We certainly can't find the author saying or suggesting that now that we know the actions of Asian settlers, we have COMPLETED the writing of the history of the Pacific Coast.

(D) has the same line references as (B) did ... and (D) really gets to the heart of the whole passage.

LSAT authors love to highlight how their opinion or their topic of focus is differentiated from "most other people" or "the way things are commonly done".

And so (E), while not expressly contradicted, seems to go against the usefulness/value of this new perspective. (E) suggests that expanding the definition of a source has only limited applicability. But ... wait! The author is so proud of these historiographers who finally recognized that we can't just look at the written record; we need to consider the actions of settlers as well to get a fuller picture. Why would the author think that that's specific to non-European settlers? The author thinks that actions tell part of the story, just as written records do.

So while there's nothing I see that explicitly contradicts (E), it would go against the thrust of the passage to diminish the value of this new historiographical approach.

Hope this helps.

[513852276]

Line 27-29 proved a reason to study action of Asian settlers. Hence, significance of immigration probably is not a concern.