Q22

[SecondWind180]

I easily narrowed it down to A and C. I felt C was a better answer, so I chose it, but can you please give me a good reason for eliminating A?

Thanks!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Great question, SecondWind180!

I'm glad you were able to definitively eliminate the other answers. (A) is far harder to eliminate - it's not clearly off course at first glance. This is exactly the scenario that leads so many people to think that Reading Comprehension is a fuzzy exercise in subjectivity and 'best answers'. So, I'm thrilled you asked, because it gives me an excuse to dispel the myth!

We're faced with a Primary Purpose question, but we're only being asked about one chunk of text. So what does this mean in terms of framing our task? First, we don't care much about the entire passage, only lines 10-19, which is nice. But second, once we are looking at those lines, we need to look at the whole chunk of text - not just one piece.

This is not an Inference question, where we would simply be asked which answer choice were true, or likely true, or likely something the author believed - in that case, any amount of support is a win. Here, scope matters - we need the overall point, but only for a limited chunk of text.

So what happens in that limited chunk of text? There's only two sentences. The first sentence tells us what happened in the past, under apartheid (parliament always wins). The second sentence tells us what is happening in the new, post-apartheid system (constitutional court can overrule parliament, based on rights enshrined in the bill of rights).

(C) sums this up smartly - we've got two wildly different time periods set side-by-side for the purpose of comparing/contrasting them!

(A) doesn't veer wildly off course, but it's only handling the first sentence of the text-chunk. That's not okay for a question that demands the primary purpose of the entire chunk. (We could hairsplit about whether it adequately addresses the first sentence, but it's far easier to eliminate it because it leaves the second sentence by the side of the road. Moral: don't hairsplit when you don't absolutely have to.)


For grins, let's spin through the other incorrect answers:
(B) The text-chunk is just descriptive, it doesn't argue for or against anything. Additionally, it seems a stretch that the author would be arguing for a return to apartheid era structures, in any case.
(D) Just as in (B), the text-chunk is just descriptive, it doesn't actively criticize anything. Additionally, it seems a stretch that the author would be criticizing the constitutional court, in any case.
(E) The text-chunk shows a way that the bill of rights is used in the new system, and maybe that is why the bill of rights was included in the constitution - but the author doesn't make that connection here.



Always remember that scope is important! Answers that are technically supported by a part of the passage can still be definitively wrong if they don't answer the correct scope of the question.

Please let me know if that completely answers your question!

[SecondWind180]

This is not an Inference question, where we would simply be asked which answer choice were true, or likely true, or likely something the author believed - in that case, any amount of support is a win. Here, scope matters - we need the overall point, but only for a limited chunk of text.

Giving out these extra little nuggets of information is what I love about MLSAT.

This

So what happens in that limited chunk of text? There's only two sentences. The first sentence tells us what happened in the past, under apartheid (parliament always wins). The second sentence tells us what is happening in the new, post-apartheid system (constitutional court can overrule parliament, based on rights enshrined in the bill of rights).

coupled with this

(A) doesn't veer wildly off course, but it's only handling the first sentence of the text-chunk. That's not okay for a question that demands the primary purpose of the entire chunk. (We could hairsplit about whether it adequately addresses the first sentence, but it's far easier to eliminate it because it leaves the second sentence by the side of the road. Moral: don't hairsplit when you don't absolutely have to.)

Makes it clear to me why it's wrong. (A) only covers lines 14-19 instead of all of 10-19 which (C) encompasses.

Thanks!

[haeeunjee]

To add to this discussion, I have found it useful for questions like "primary purpose" to look at the sentences that immediately precede the chunk of text that they want us to look at, and usually those sentences give a good indication of what the author was trying to mean. "The changes in the legal system are significant... for all lawyers as they will have to learn a less rule-bound and more interpretative way of looking at the law" immediately precedes the discussion comparing the old and new system. In fact, the line 10 starts off with "That is to say, in the past..." That's how I chose C over A in my review. Hope this helped!