I completely misinterpreted the last paragraph in this passage and it caused me to miss questions 24 and 25.
Phrases like "Like historians who have studied European ethnic culture..."
and
"it is difficult to prove...that a sense of peoplehood is a distinct phenomenon."
Led me to believe the author was saying Fugita and O'Brien'd research was unoriginal instead of unsubstantiated. The author doesn't really say it is unsubstantiated does he/she? Just that it should focus on something else because right now it's too much like earlier theories?
Something something is difficult to prove as a unique phenomenon specifically got me. The author isn't saying it's difficult to prove at all, just that it's difficult to prove that the one culture had a different experience than the other.
This is why I don't get answers 24. C and 25. A. I just didn't see this info in that last paragraph.
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- mic_a_chav87
-
Thanks Received: 1
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 14
- Joined: April 23rd, 2012
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q24
The passage is definitely a tough read overall.
One thing that helps me is that lines 8-11 basically preview the structure of the passage to come:
i. we'll show how F&O are part of the growing movement to show how ethnic identity persists, despite growing assimilation
ii. we'll complain about something we don't like about these types of studies.
So what is the complaint?
The author is saying that it's lame for these researchers to say that "a greater sense of peoplehood" is why some ethnic groups have a better time than others at preserving their ethnic identities in the midst of the American melting pot.
It's kinda like me looking at a classroom of 3rd graders and seeing that some of them behave much better than others.
What's the reason? Well, I say, those well-behaved kids are endowed with a special quality of "good-behaviorability".
It's basically a circular argument. The author is saying, "you haven't pointed out what the cause is. You've just taken the observed effect and invented some concept to justify it."
A circular argument is definitely an "unsubstantiated" one.
Why should we believe that some ethnic groups have a stronger sense of "peoplehood"? Because some ethnic groups better maintain their ethnic identity when exposed to cultural pluralism.
Why do some ethnic groups better maintain their identity? Because they have a stronger sense of "peoplehood".
How do we measure "peoplehood"? Why don't other cultures have as much of it? If "peoplehood" is "independent of how a group adapts to US culture", if it's "a distinct phenomenon", then we should be able to measure it long before an ethnic group attempts to adapt to American life.
The author is frustrated by the lack of answers to these basic questions.
For Q24, we can support (C) by line 54, which says "it is difficult to prove". "Difficult to prove" = "difficult to substantiate"
A) is too positive, when we know our author is skeptical
B) is inaccurate, when we know that others have also proposed a similar theory (hence, it's not 'original')
D) both adjectives are extreme and unsupported
E) is tempting, because F&O's hypothesis is similar to other theories. The author's complaint, though, is not that the hypothesis is too similar; it's that all these similar hypotheses carry the same problem of positing this unprovable idea of "peoplehood".
So the critical tone of "too similar" misses the point of the last paragraph. The problem isn't their similarity, it's their lack of substance.
For Q25, we can support (A) because the historians mentioned in line 49 are brought up to illustrate the common problem shared by them and F&O: this hollow idea of "peoplehood" is being used to explain why some ethnic groups get less diluted by immersion into American culture than do others.
Even if you're having trouble digging into the specific details of the last paragraph, try to use the rhetorical signposts to figure out "who's saying what" / "who's on the same/different sides" / "who does the author agree/disagree with".
From line 49, we know that "historians" and F&O explain persistent ethnic identities the same way. From line 54, telegraphed with our good friend "however", we know the author disagrees with both of them. Why does the author disagree? "Peoplehood" is difficult to prove and historians should be trying to explain the assimilation process, not inventing characteristics the ethnic groups possessed before they arrived.
B) all we know about the European studies is that the researchers similarly posited "peoplehood" as the reason for persisting ethnic identities.
C) contradicts line 49.
D) contradicts line 49.
E) "still as strong" is too extreme. We know that some European ethnic groups must have persistent ethnic identities but not that community ties are "the same" as when immigrants first arrived.
Hope this helps.
One thing that helps me is that lines 8-11 basically preview the structure of the passage to come:
i. we'll show how F&O are part of the growing movement to show how ethnic identity persists, despite growing assimilation
ii. we'll complain about something we don't like about these types of studies.
So what is the complaint?
The author is saying that it's lame for these researchers to say that "a greater sense of peoplehood" is why some ethnic groups have a better time than others at preserving their ethnic identities in the midst of the American melting pot.
It's kinda like me looking at a classroom of 3rd graders and seeing that some of them behave much better than others.
What's the reason? Well, I say, those well-behaved kids are endowed with a special quality of "good-behaviorability".
It's basically a circular argument. The author is saying, "you haven't pointed out what the cause is. You've just taken the observed effect and invented some concept to justify it."
A circular argument is definitely an "unsubstantiated" one.
Why should we believe that some ethnic groups have a stronger sense of "peoplehood"? Because some ethnic groups better maintain their ethnic identity when exposed to cultural pluralism.
Why do some ethnic groups better maintain their identity? Because they have a stronger sense of "peoplehood".
How do we measure "peoplehood"? Why don't other cultures have as much of it? If "peoplehood" is "independent of how a group adapts to US culture", if it's "a distinct phenomenon", then we should be able to measure it long before an ethnic group attempts to adapt to American life.
The author is frustrated by the lack of answers to these basic questions.
For Q24, we can support (C) by line 54, which says "it is difficult to prove". "Difficult to prove" = "difficult to substantiate"
A) is too positive, when we know our author is skeptical
B) is inaccurate, when we know that others have also proposed a similar theory (hence, it's not 'original')
D) both adjectives are extreme and unsupported
E) is tempting, because F&O's hypothesis is similar to other theories. The author's complaint, though, is not that the hypothesis is too similar; it's that all these similar hypotheses carry the same problem of positing this unprovable idea of "peoplehood".
So the critical tone of "too similar" misses the point of the last paragraph. The problem isn't their similarity, it's their lack of substance.
For Q25, we can support (A) because the historians mentioned in line 49 are brought up to illustrate the common problem shared by them and F&O: this hollow idea of "peoplehood" is being used to explain why some ethnic groups get less diluted by immersion into American culture than do others.
Even if you're having trouble digging into the specific details of the last paragraph, try to use the rhetorical signposts to figure out "who's saying what" / "who's on the same/different sides" / "who does the author agree/disagree with".
From line 49, we know that "historians" and F&O explain persistent ethnic identities the same way. From line 54, telegraphed with our good friend "however", we know the author disagrees with both of them. Why does the author disagree? "Peoplehood" is difficult to prove and historians should be trying to explain the assimilation process, not inventing characteristics the ethnic groups possessed before they arrived.
B) all we know about the European studies is that the researchers similarly posited "peoplehood" as the reason for persisting ethnic identities.
C) contradicts line 49.
D) contradicts line 49.
E) "still as strong" is too extreme. We know that some European ethnic groups must have persistent ethnic identities but not that community ties are "the same" as when immigrants first arrived.
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1