Q26

 
pistachio2014
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 23
Joined: May 30th, 2010
 
 
 

Q26

by pistachio2014 Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:27 pm

Hi, can someone please explain why (E) is the correct answer? Thank you!
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT2
Thanks Received: 311
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 303
Joined: July 14th, 2009
 
This post thanked 3 times.
 
 

Re: PT 40, S4, Q26 It can be most reasonably

by ManhattanPrepLSAT2 Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:43 pm

Often, the word "infer" have a more general meaning in RC than it does in LR -- in this case, the inference in the correct answer isn't based on any direct and reasonable logical deduction that can be derived from the passage, but rather a consensus of information that makes one answer most likely accurate.

What's relevant to (E) are two areas where the author subtly states opinion - when she expresses alarm in the first paragraph for how the witnesses can be tainted before trail, and when she says what is tangential to a witnesses' memory can be crucial. This all leads us to believe that she thinks this is something that should be directly important (rather than just of abstract academic interest) to the legal profession.

As in all RC cases, the key to getting this q correct is seeing that the other answers are not as good.

(A) discusses unexpected findings and nothing was unexpected
(B) discusses shedding new light on a longstanding controversy -- shedding light and longstanding controversy don't represent the passage accurately
(C) discusses inconclusive findings, which is not what the passage discusses
(D) is just plain very different from what the text talks about --

Hope that helps!


(
 
tzyc
Thanks Received: 0
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 323
Joined: May 27th, 2012
 
 
trophy
Most Thankful
 

Re: Q26

by tzyc Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:28 am

What does E say? Especially the part "Should be of more than"...could anyone rephrase it?? :oops:

Thank you
 
cchukwu
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 1
Joined: October 02nd, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q26

by cchukwu Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:16 pm

But doesn't the first sentence in the 2nd paragraph illustrate answer choice B?
 
al2568
Thanks Received: 1
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 14
Joined: September 15th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q26

by al2568 Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:54 pm

The first sentence says that studies confirm......

Is confirming something the same as shedding light on something?

Example: Studies confirm that Republicans and Democrats do not like each other. Is this anything new? Are we shedding the light onto anything there? No.

Also, I don't think there is support that this a "longstanding" controversy. Just a controversy.

(This passage was/is really tough for me. I think it was the nature of the questions and answers (21, 23, 26, 27) more than the passage but just wanted to let you know in case it was tough for you too, that you're not the only one.)
 
blahsheep
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 6
Joined: September 02nd, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q26

by blahsheep Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:18 pm

tzyc Wrote:What does E say? Especially the part "Should be of more than"...could anyone rephrase it?? :oops:


I take "abstract academic interest" to basically mean ideas that exist theoretically in academic circles (among professors, intellectuals, etc. writing books and giving lectures about these studies regarding leading questions and memory).

(E) is saying that these studies about leading questions and memory should not only be discussed among academics, but rather that judges/lawyers/legal community in general need to consider them in light of what we know about eyewitness susceptibility to leading questions. In other words, it's not enough to have these studies floating around in universities without considering their implications on the legal system.

"Should be of more than"
Roughly speaking, this is saying: Currently, the studies in question may only be of an academic interest (again, ideas floating around in universities). But for the legal community, these studies should be considered beyond something merely academic (the practical legal implications).
 
abegin93
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 4
Joined: May 02nd, 2016
 
 
 

Re: PT 40, S4, Q26 It can be most reasonably

by abegin93 Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:42 pm

Mike.Kim Wrote:Often, the word "infer" have a more general meaning in RC than it does in LR -- in this case, the inference in the correct answer isn't based on any direct and reasonable logical deduction that can be derived from the passage, but rather a consensus of information that makes one answer most likely accurate.

What's relevant to (E) are two areas where the author subtly states opinion - when she expresses alarm in the first paragraph for how the witnesses can be tainted before trail, and when she says what is tangential to a witnesses' memory can be crucial. This all leads us to believe that she thinks this is something that should be directly important (rather than just of abstract academic interest) to the legal profession.

As in all RC cases, the key to getting this q correct is seeing that the other answers are not as good.

(A) discusses unexpected findings and nothing was unexpected
(B) discusses shedding new light on a longstanding controversy -- shedding light and longstanding controversy don't represent the passage accurately
(C) discusses inconclusive findings, which is not what the passage discusses
(D) is just plain very different from what the text talks about --

Hope that helps!


(



I was deciding between A and E and ended up choosing A. I took the "alarmingly" when talking about how witnesses are influenced outside of the courtrooms to mean that this was a shocking (unexpected) phenomenon. Then I thought the studies referenced in the next paragraph were used to discuss where this alarming claim came from. So then I thought the author felt that the studies discussed had produced unexpected (alarming) findings (A) . Hoping that all makes sense... haha.

I thought E was too big of a jump originally, but now I can sort of see how that argument can be made. Is there a more specific way A can be eliminated?
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q26

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:52 pm

Keep in mind abegin93 that the studies aren't introduced until the 2nd paragraph. For that reason, the discussion in the first paragraph shouldn't be considered. Also, the studies "confirm" (line 18) the ability of leading questions to alter the details of our memories.

Hope that helps!