Q12

[oslo90066]

I did not choose D because lines 11-14 specifically say, ¨Whereas many contemporary women poets have rejected this tradition as historically exclusionary and rhetorically inadequate for women, Gluck embraces it with respect and admiration¨. To me, that is not ¨tacit¨, which implies silent. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could explain.

[aileenann]

I agree with you that "tacit" would seem to imply silence, or at least indirectness. However, I think that is what we see in the passage and specifically in the lines you note. I would point out two things that may help you accept (D) as the answer. First, the selection of text you quoted does not explicitly endorse Gluck's view of poetry -that is, it doesn't say this is the right view. However, the general tone and interest of the author in Gluck's poetry do tend to convey that the author favors Gluck over her critics. I would say this is an example of tacit endorsement. The author does not come out and say that s/he approves of Gluck, but nonetheless finds ways to convey that attitude.

The second point is that this is a general question, asking about the author's attitude. As such, we will think about the overall tone of the passage. Here too the endorsement is tacit - not directly articulated but nonetheless conveyed.

[jiehaep]

12. (D)
Question Type: Interpretation
The tricky part of this question is that the author never directly states his or her position. The author does, however, devote many more words to Gluck’s side, and both begins and ends the passage with defenses of Gluck’s position, rebutting each of the critics’ points with a cogent argument from Gluck. Choice (D) best describes this attitude of unspoken endorsement.
(A) is an unsupported interpretation. A dismissive author would not devote the bulk of the passage to Gluck’s views.
(B) is an unsupported interpretation. Nowhere is it indicated that the author begrudges Gluck anything.
(C) is a tempting answer because the author never directly states his or her opinion. However, a truly indifferent writer would not so carefully structure the argument in favor of Gluck.
(E) is an unsupported interpretation. The author never directly states his or her opinion, so "enthusiastic" is too strong a word.

[frenchvanillabosco]

I think the "author's attitude" question type is really giving me a headache. I got this question wrong and also question 1 from the previous passage.

When is it the case that the author is indifferent or just intellectually curious, and when do we know that the author is supporting the subject in discussion?

Thanks!

[maryadkins]

Tricky one.

I think while the author isn't like verbally enthused, both "detached" and "indifferent" feel like bigger stretches to me than an answer choice that is vaguely and minimally positive. But yeah, every now and then it's a hard call. My advice is to consider each word in these two-word answer choices on its own and make sure it's justified/try to eliminate it based on it—that usually gets me where I need to be.

[dhlim3]

I have read this passage over 3 times now and I still cannot find any hint or sign that the author shows any sort of endorsement towards Gluck's view of poetry. To me, the words the author uses to describe both Gluck's and her critics' position seemed perfectly neutral - the author did not use any particularly favorable language to describe her viewpoint, nor did he/she used any language that implied negativity towards the critics.

All the "favorable" words I was able to find (i.e. "respect", "admiration", "appreciation", "great") pertains to how Gluck felt towards the "traditional poets", not how the author felt toward Gluck's POV. As a matter of fact, this whole passage is an extremely dry piece of analytical essay about two conflicting view points - Person A thinks one way, Person B thinks other way, Person A defends her viewpoint, the end.

Sure, the author finishes the passage with Gluck defending her view, but just because the author decided not to add the critics' response to Gluck's refute, am I supposed to assume from this that the author somehow endorses the view? This seems like an even bigger stretch than "detached indifference" (which I picked).

[zen]

I have read this passage over 3 times now and I still cannot find any hint or sign that the author shows any sort of endorsement towards Gluck's view of poetry. To me, the words the author uses to describe both Gluck's and her critics' position seemed perfectly neutral - the author did not use any particularly favorable language to describe her viewpoint, nor did he/she used any language that implied negativity towards the critics.

All the "favorable" words I was able to find (i.e. "respect", "admiration", "appreciation", "great") pertains to how Gluck felt towards the "traditional poets", not how the author felt toward Gluck's POV. As a matter of fact, this whole passage is an extremely dry piece of analytical essay about two conflicting view points - Person A thinks one way, Person B thinks other way, Person A defends her viewpoint, the end.

Sure, the author finishes the passage with Gluck defending her view, but just because the author decided not to add the critics' response to Gluck's refute, am I supposed to assume from this that the author somehow endorses the view? This seems like an even bigger stretch than "detached indifference" (which I picked).

I'm having the exact same issue. Only missed 2 on this section and both were of this type( the other was q.1 from the first passage). Although the last one felt a bit of a stretch, this one feels even crazier. There really isn't a good AC for this question but I agree, the author definitely seems like she has no dogs in the fight, so to speak. She presents both sides and never says she likes a certain viewpoint. It's more like an article in which an author discusses her art's "biography" and how she differs from other artists; I have trouble stretching this to "endorsement".

[maryadkins]

Sorry, guys, I wish I had more to tell you than what's already been said on the thread (by me, included). It's a crappy one. Process of elimination is the only way to get there. Some (not a lot, but some) LSAT questions are real jerks, and this is one of them. I say call it what it is and move on. Don't try to extrapolate some general rule from this one except for using POE.

[LukeM22]

Tricky one.

I think while the author isn't like verbally enthused, both "detached" and "indifferent" feel like bigger stretches to me than an answer choice that is vaguely and minimally positive. But yeah, every now and then it's a hard call. My advice is to consider each word in these two-word answer choices on its own and make sure it's justified/try to eliminate it based on it—that usually gets me where I need to be.

OK, so, like posters above, I also missed Question 1 and Question 12 from this section, and the systematic error I seem to be making is that I'm failing to interpret a seemingly neutral passage as "tacit endorsement" or "implicit acceptance". It seems that in order to properly eliminate wrong answers in both of these questions, I would have to assume that:

By default, if a passage is neutrally written, and not explicitly refuting/bashing the person/theory/movement in the passage, then it is by default accepting it, and if it's not doing so obviously, then it's "tacitly" or "implicitly" endorsing the passage. The only way I can try to justify this by assuming that, by virtue of sheer page-space devoted to the topic, the "scale", so to speak" is already in favor of whatever is being discussed, and in the event of the appearance of neutrality, we just have to give the slight edge to anything unstated, positive.

Is this correct? I have no other way of reconciling my wrong answers otherwise and not sure what to take away from this.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yup, you've got it.

If it makes you feel better, I can't remember having ever seen these "unstated endorsement" again. The fact that there were two on the same section was just rubbing it in our faces.

I got so angry because everything about LSAT correct answers is supposed to be "find explicit support in the passage".

How can we find explicit support for "tacit / implicit" things, which are by definition UNSTATED!

So, I had the same takeaway:
if author gives last word / most air time to X, she implicitly agrees with X.

But I've never encountered that situation again.

[ShariS937]

If you look at the paragraphs, they are structured like this:

Gluck says blah blah

Gluck's formative encounters blah blah

Gluck's critics say blah blah

Gluck says blah blah

From here, is it clear which is the only one that can be the author's own opinion?

If you go back to the second paragraph, there are zero words indicating hesitation, disagreement with Gluck, or agreement with critics. That leaves tacit endorsement and enthusiastic acclaim.

Enthusiastic acclaim would need a statement (by the author) of strong agreement with Gluck, or else the author could bring in a critic who shows strong agreement with Gluck. Eliminate,

Tacit endorsement wins - the author does not disagree or disapprove but also does not agree or strengthen Gluck's opinion with outside perspectives.

Cheers,
s