LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q23
With most RC questions, we start by trying to predict our own correct answer (Prephrasing).
For Organization questions, you're essentially reminding yourself of your Passage Map, trying to remind yourself of the function of each paragraph as it relates to the author's overall purpose.
This author was attempting to tell us about Gilman, mostly in terms of her how Darwin's theory of evolution influenced her and in terms of how she influenced others through her interpretation of it.
1st P - Thesis, followed by a general description of Darwin's theory leading to two different types of Social Darwinism
2nd P - Attaches Gilman to second type and provides more detail about what she believed in (find meaningful work)
3rd P - Continuation of discussing how Gilman aligned with second type and more specifically what some of her goals were (balance out society with some female traits)
(A) Don't hate it on a first read. Gilman was a proponent of the second of two versions of Social Darwinism. Is there a description of HOW she drew practical implications? That feels weird.
(B) While we could pick on several things, the clear dealbreaker to me was the last ingredient: I don't think the passage ended with a rejection of one of two competing theories.
(C) I don't think the author is proposing an interpretation. It seems like the author is describing the historical record. It definitely doesn't feel like the AUTHOR is arguing for anything in the last paragraph. He's just presenting Gilman's ideas.
(D) I would stop at the 2nd ingredient. Does the author ever EVALUATE anyone's reasoning? It seems like a very neutral author. "Evaluate" = "to offer your opinion on the matter"
(E) I would get rid of this based on the last ingredient. The passage didn't end with any CRITICS.
So ... back to (A), I guess?
I could make peace with "how she drew practical implications" from lines like 31-33 and 39-43. And the author certainly relates her implications throughout the 2nd and 3rd paragraph.
I'm certainly not in love with (A)'s wording, but it didn't have any clear dealbreakers the way the other ones did.
Hope this helps.
For Organization questions, you're essentially reminding yourself of your Passage Map, trying to remind yourself of the function of each paragraph as it relates to the author's overall purpose.
This author was attempting to tell us about Gilman, mostly in terms of her how Darwin's theory of evolution influenced her and in terms of how she influenced others through her interpretation of it.
1st P - Thesis, followed by a general description of Darwin's theory leading to two different types of Social Darwinism
2nd P - Attaches Gilman to second type and provides more detail about what she believed in (find meaningful work)
3rd P - Continuation of discussing how Gilman aligned with second type and more specifically what some of her goals were (balance out society with some female traits)
(A) Don't hate it on a first read. Gilman was a proponent of the second of two versions of Social Darwinism. Is there a description of HOW she drew practical implications? That feels weird.
(B) While we could pick on several things, the clear dealbreaker to me was the last ingredient: I don't think the passage ended with a rejection of one of two competing theories.
(C) I don't think the author is proposing an interpretation. It seems like the author is describing the historical record. It definitely doesn't feel like the AUTHOR is arguing for anything in the last paragraph. He's just presenting Gilman's ideas.
(D) I would stop at the 2nd ingredient. Does the author ever EVALUATE anyone's reasoning? It seems like a very neutral author. "Evaluate" = "to offer your opinion on the matter"
(E) I would get rid of this based on the last ingredient. The passage didn't end with any CRITICS.
So ... back to (A), I guess?
I could make peace with "how she drew practical implications" from lines like 31-33 and 39-43. And the author certainly relates her implications throughout the 2nd and 3rd paragraph.
I'm certainly not in love with (A)'s wording, but it didn't have any clear dealbreakers the way the other ones did.
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1