Q14

[trevor.lovell]

I had a very difficult time choosing between A and D. On the one hand, A seems a little strong since the passage is not presenting a specific or complete study of Hopi names. On the other, D seems to over-emphasize the significance the author places on the "two influential views" being discussed.

It seemed to me like the author was using Mill's and Levi-Strauss's views as a foil against which to present information about Hopi names, whereas answer D treats the information on Hopi names as just one example of where these views were inadequate. I felt like the emphasis was reversed and went with A as being perhaps a little overstated but better than D. Help?

[timmydoeslsat]

Great question.

The first paragraph of the passage discusses two ways European thinkers regard or treat personal names:

1) Philosophy and linguistics: Mill's view is that proper names are meaningless marks that place distinguishes person A from person B.

2) Anthropology: Levi-Strauss's view is that names used as instruments in social classification. This view has been influential the passage states.

The author also states in the first passage that the interpretations of names having other functions have basically been ignored.

Then the author brings up the idea of the Hopi. This is to criticize those two theories and how they do not adequately or sufficiently represent how personal names need to be regarded or thought about.

In number 14, the author's purpose is not to present an anthropological study. The author does have information that has anthropological aspects, such as how the names of members of the Hopi originated.

Would it make sense for the author two start off and to end with, the idea of two views, is opposed to the history and meaning of names of the Hopi. The author's purpose is not to simply present a study. The author is going after these theories! He is attacking them. The author shows that they are inadequate.

[lhermary]

D seems to be a far stretch.

The passage seems to more about how the two theories (mills and Levi-Strauss) do not represent all the functions that names can have.

line 10-12

"Consequently, interpretation of personal names in societies where names have other functions and meanings have been neglected"

And then the author talks for the next two and half paragraphs without mentioning either Mills or Levi-Strauss.

[jpchris3]

Hi,

I'm also wondering why the correct answer is A, and not D

[nflamel69]

A. tricky answer. this does conform the majority of the evidence in the text. However, remember that the whole Hopi name is used as an example to show that european thinking of names is too narrow.

B. the author does not propose a new theory. instead, he's using an example to show that european leading theories are not complete.

C. this is not a description passage. Author has a pretty strong opinion

D. I only chose this answer because it reminded me one of those tricky passages thats the RC guide mentioned, it used the Hopi names as a springboard in a way to discuss a bigger issue.

E. Again. explaining is not the main objective here. In addition, cultural origins? way too far fetched.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think there have been some great explanations for why (D) ends up being the correct answer here.

I just want to reinforce the idea that "Purpose" is not necessarily focused on what was discussed the majority of the time. When an author uses a specific example to illustrate a broader point, you're going to get a passage that's 85% detail concerning the specific example. Nevertheless, the PURPOSE of that example is still to illustrate that broader point, so LSAT will reward you for recognizing/understanding the broader point.

I thought Timmy's reference to the "bookend" structure of this passage was extremely important ... that's what really allowed me to make peace with picking (D). The fact that the author brought us back to where we began really solidifies that he wants us to hear his Hopi discussion in relation to this broader framework.

Another recurring passage purpose that will be unevenly weighted is when an author describes a problem and suggests a remedy.

The author will often spend the first 80% of the passage describing the problem and only the final paragraph suggesting a remedy, but nevertheless 'suggesting a remedy' would still qualify as the author's purpose.

In science passages, the author may spend the first 80% of the passage dryly discussing the background of a certain subject and the recent research that has made advances. He may only refer to the implications of this research at the end, but that may still dominate the Main Point / Purpose answer.

Happy reading.

[wgutx08]

Thanks so much Patrick for the great explanation. Well, so much for the "correspondence/accordance between main idea (Q8) and main purpose question (Q14)" theory!

I want to add one more point/question though. For me as a non-anthropologist, the word "anthropology" associates with (besides the store Anthropologie) studies of everything related to humans. So I thought this passage is an "anthropological"study all right and A is perfectly correct. But now I realized that anthropology is mentioned in L7 and is associated with Levi-Strauss's theory. I wonder if the testmakers put this word there to let A suggest that this study is somehow from the Levis-Strauss point of view and is about the social placement aspect of Hopi names????

I know this is not hard logic, of course the study can still be perfectly anthropological although it undermines the prevailing anthropological idea on the subject. It's just my feeling that in LSAT (especially the main idea/inference questions), when another AC besides the correct one looks too good from scope and content, it very often has some additional mean detail problems which make it more clearly wrong. Not sure if this is another case and would very much appreciate your comments!

[ohthatpatrick]

I don't THINK that was what LSAT had in mind to disqualify (A), but you're right that some students may have gotten confused thinking that we were HEARING Levi-Strauss's anthropological work, not arguing against it.

I'm pretty sure 'anthropology' means 'the study of cultures', so it seems to me like the discussion of the Hopi society and naming conventions definitely falls under the category of 'anthropological discussion'.

But there are still two problems with (A):

1. The passage does not present a 'study'. A passage presenting a study would have said something like, "However, in Katherine Morgan's recent work Name Me a Rainbow, it is clear that Hopi names do much more than just refer to a noun", and then the passage would have elaborated on the facts contained in her study. This author just seems to be speaking from a place of knowledge about Hopi society and naming conventions. If I'm really knowledgeable about the career and songs of Nirvana and start talking about them for a couple paragraphs, that doesn't mean that I've presented a study.

2. The author's purpose was not as neutral as "presenting" / "describing" / "explaining". The author was definitely setting the stage by saying that he needs to "clarify a misconception".

(FYI, I'm also well-versed with Anthropologie ... 80% of the gifts I buy my wife have come from there)

[Heart Shaped Box]

If I'm really knowledgeable about the career and songs of Nirvana and start talking about them for a couple paragraphs, that doesn't mean that I've presented a study.

2. The author's purpose was not as neutral as "presenting" / "describing" / "explaining". The author was definitely setting the stage by saying that he needs to "clarify a misconception".

I'm a huge Nirvana fan Patrick (as you can see from my name lol) and I have two Nirvana tattoos

Your second point def clears things up for me. I think the ability to discern the Author's tone is the key for this Q. It should be obvious (tho it's kinda hidden) that author is def not happy with those European thinkers views, hence using Hopi example to criticize their oversimplified views on the names. A might be true in terms of the content, but its "function" is to support D. In other words, the author may have presented an anthro study of Hopi names in order to criticize those dumb Europeans --- hence the purpose.