Q22

[lowebrandon477]

On Prep Test 61, can someone explain why question 22 E is not right?

[ohthatpatrick]

Hey, there.

Did you find any support for (E)?

As a general suggestion for questions of this type, you want to find a line reference to support whichever answer you're picking.

So if you were liking (E), you should have a line reference to go with it.

For example, I would pick (A) because I think that it paraphrases what is said in lines 13-16.

I would have a couple hesitations about (E) on my first read:
1. "a considerable number" sounds strong and specific
2. I seem to remember the passage saying that the African American historians DIDN'T like nationalism, because they saw it leading to imperialism. (lines 34-39)

I think the closest support for (E) would be lines 50-52, but this is referring to "nationalism" metaphorically, because African American historians were seeking to unite the scattered global population of Africans under some common story/history.

This is not the same as the nationalism that (E) speaks of, characterized by the dominance of the nation-state.

Let me know if you were looking at something else in the passage to support (E).

Good luck!

[aznriceboi17]

Hi, could someone explain why C is wrong? I was drawn to it because of lines 26-34, which says that mainstream U.S. historiography was 'firmly rooted in a nationalist approach', something that I would paraphrase as 'most U.S. historians tried to make the history of the U.S. seem more glorious than it actually was'. Is the problem with C that it refers to 'ALL' historians, and not necessarily just U.S. historians writing about U.S. history?

[ohthatpatrick]

You have indeed nailed it. I agree that "mainstream" allows us to generalize to "most", but (C) plays the nasty trick of talking about most historians globally.

Nice catch!

[nflamel69]

For C, in addition to the "most" part, I feel like the part about "more glorious than they actually were" is kind of out of scope as well. We know that mainstream glorifies a nation as sentence 26-28 suggested. But can we really say that they are making it more glorious? When I searched dictionary, glorify can also be interpreted as making clear or indicate an action as glorious, but I don't think it necessarily make something more glorious than they actually are. Can any geeks clarify this?

[ohthatpatrick]

You're definitely correct that "glorification" is a weak match for "more glorious than they actually were".

By saying, "Nailed it", I probably made it sound like the "most historians" was the only problem.
I was just responding to the previous poster's thoughts and saying that he/she was correct.

Knowing that historians glorified the nation does NOT allow us to infer "more glorious than it really was", whereas words like "exaggerated" / "sensationalized" / "propagandized" would be more in that department.

Good catch.

[daniel]

Hey, there.

Did you find any support for (E)?

As a general suggestion for questions of this type, you want to find a line reference to support whichever answer you're picking.

So if you were liking (E), you should have a line reference to go with it.

For example, I would pick (A) because I think that it paraphrases what is said in lines 13-16.

I would have a couple hesitations about (E) on my first read:
1. "a considerable number" sounds strong and specific
2. I seem to remember the passage saying that the African American historians DIDN'T like nationalism, because they saw it leading to imperialism. (lines 34-39)

I think the closest support for (E) would be lines 50-52, but this is referring to "nationalism" metaphorically, because African American historians were seeking to unite the scattered global population of Africans under some common story/history.

This is not the same as the nationalism that (E) speaks of, characterized by the dominance of the nation-state.

Let me know if you were looking at something else in the passage to support (E).

Good luck!

I do not disagree with the above, but wanted to add to the discussion on (E), with respect to why this answer choice may have seemed attractive.

First, answer choice (E) seems intended to trap careless readers by dangling familiar groupings of words in front of them, and hoping for a bite. To see how this is done, consider the first two sentences of paragraph three, and particularly the words: "mainstream," "firmly rooted," "nationalist approach," "nation-state," "inevitability," and "dominant." See any parallels with the following words that appear in answer choice (E): "a considerable number," "embraced," "nationalism," "nation-state," "inevitability," and "dominance"?

If the reader doesn't look back for support, then it is arguably easy to see how this answer may look attractive, just based on the similarity mentioned above.

However, answer choice (E) adeptly turns the table on seemingly familiar ideas from the passage, and thereby is a good example of an attractive yet incorrect answer choice:

1) Misattribution (the most obvious problem). Paragraph three is about mainstream U.S. historiography, but answer choice (E) references "a considerable number of early African American historians" -- these are two different groups, and there is no support in the passage as to whether or how many African American historians operated in the mainstream of U.S. historiography.

2) Bait-and-switch: "dominant" attributes of historiography versus "dominance of the nation-state." The first sentence of paragraph three suggests that there were two dominant attributes of mainstream U.S. historiography: "glorification of the nation" and "focus on the nation-state as a historical force." But, answer choice (E) says "dominance of the nation-state."

3) Bait-and-switch (again): "inevitability of nations" versus "inevitability of the dominance."

Because of the issues identified in 2) and 3) above, the answer choice would not even be correct if the misattribution issue were resolved. That is, if the answer choice said,

"Mainstream U.S. historiography embraced nationalism and the inevitability of the dominance of the nation-state"

then, it would be more attractive, but I think it would still be wrong in a subtle, but significant, way.

[altheuer]

I'm having trouble seeing why A is right.

lines 10-13 say that because the question of citizenship hadn't been resolved, emigrations sentiment was a central issue.

-citizenship resolved --> emigration sentiment issue

Answer A doesn't seem like a paraphrase, but rather a reversal of logic, as it says that if the citizenship problem had been resolved, emigrationist sentiment would not have been as strong.

citizenship resolved --> -emigration sentiment issue

I just don't understand how logically we could infer this.

[ohthatpatrick]

You're accurate in your assessment: "we CANNOT logically infer this".

But --- "most strongly support" question stems routinely make this type of leap.

It's NOT black and white, provable logic. It's just a supportable idea.

If I saw "jen was late for work because the line at Starbucks was so long", then LSAT will let you say (on a "most strongly support" question stem) something like

"Had the line been shorter, Jen might not have been tardy to work".

We have no idea if this MUST be true ... maybe leaving Starbucks earlier would have led to Jen getting into a car accident.

But whenever LSAT gives us causal indicator language, they consider it SUPPORTABLE to say "without that cause, we may have not had that effect (or as much of that effect)".

These answers torment a lot of us conditional logic hounds until we realize that LSAT is not asking for MUST BE TRUE on these question stems, just the closest we can get to that standard.

Hope this helps.

[krisk743]

For this question I chose E over A because I didn't like how A said "had the US promise..." That was just confusing to throw in promise

But a/c E I found support for on 43-45. Inevitability seemed to be a stretch but COULD be interpreted. And Nation-state also bothered me because it was only stated on line 29 but I took "nation building" to be close enough.

For the reasons I was skeptical should I have eliminated? I know the obvious answer to that would be yes but I always feel like the LSAT will justify an answer as correct by these same standards but for right now its incorrect. The rules I feel like always fluctuate and their paraphrasing leaves open so many possibilities.

[allenkw90]

Hey, there.

Did you find any support for (E)?

As a general suggestion for questions of this type, you want to find a line reference to support whichever answer you're picking.

So if you were liking (E), you should have a line reference to go with it.

For example, I would pick (A) because I think that it paraphrases what is said in lines 13-16.

I would have a couple hesitations about (E) on my first read:
1. "a considerable number" sounds strong and specific
2. I seem to remember the passage saying that the African American historians DIDN'T like nationalism, because they saw it leading to imperialism. (lines 34-39)

I think the closest support for (E) would be lines 50-52, but this is referring to "nationalism" metaphorically, because African American historians were seeking to unite the scattered global population of Africans under some common story/history.

This is not the same as the nationalism that (E) speaks of, characterized by the dominance of the nation-state.

Let me know if you were looking at something else in the passage to support (E).

Good luck!

Hi Patrick. I wanted to choose (A) for this question, but what threw me off was the words "promise", and "realized".

Lines 10-16 somewhat infer (A), but nowhere does it mention that U.S. citizenship was "promised" for African Americans. Rather, it mentions that "the question of citizenship for African Americans had not been genuinely resolved".

Something that had not been genuinely resolved does not mean something that had been "promised" not being "realized", does it?

I'm really struggling with these kinds of issues. I ended up choosing (C), but I see why it is wrong now. But I also find (A) wrong for the aforementioned reason.

Could you help me out, please?

Thank you in advance!

[ohthatpatrick]

I think choice (A) isn't using "promise" in the sense you are (an agreed upon obligation). It's using "promise" in the sense of
"This looks promising (encouraging)".
"That new recruit shows a lot of promise (encouraging potential)."
"The 2020 election campaign promises to be (creates the expectation of) another cultural headache."

Part of a good contextual understanding of the text is an awareness of the time period: African Americans in the US prior to the 1860 were mostly slaves. Following the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th Amendment, slavery was outlawed and so African Americans had an expectation that now that they were free men, they would be considered US citizens like every other free man.

Since the 14th didn't rigidly define that "yes, black people are citizens", instead leaving that matter unresolved, black people of the time would have felt disappointed, like the promise (potential / expectation) of finally being considered normal US citizens had still not been realized.

Hope this helps.

[obobob]

You're definitely correct that "glorification" is a weak match for "more glorious than they actually were".

By saying, "Nailed it", I probably made it sound like the "most historians" was the only problem.
I was just responding to the previous poster's thoughts and saying that he/she was correct.

Knowing that historians glorified the nation does NOT allow us to infer "more glorious than it really was", whereas words like "exaggerated" / "sensationalized" / "propagandized" would be more in that department.

Good catch.

Hi just a quick Q-- can anyone help me understand how they are different.

To me, "exaggerated" / "sensationalized" / "propagandized" just sounds the same as "[making something] more glorious than it really [is]"

[ohthatpatrick]

You're right that they're all on the same continuum.

This is more contextual, than definitional. In context, "glorification" sounded like "Highlight the positives". Meanwhile, "Trying to make it sound more glorious than it was" in (C) sounds more accusatory to me.

If I write an article that glorifies Lebron James, I will include this titles / MVP's / testimonials from teammates who loved him.
If I omit the criticisms he sometimes faces, am I making him seem more glorious than he is? Or am I just accentuating the positive?

That was the hair of daylight I was sensing between how 'glorification' was used in the passage vs. how it's used in (C).

But in other contexts I think you're right that propaganda and sensationalizing often involve glorification.