Q26

[weiyichen1986]

For this question, D is wrong because high education, occupation are not causal factors, but instead they are just correlations according to the passage, but the answer choice makes it as a causal factor? Thanks

[rinagoldfield]

Hi weiyichen1986!

Thanks for your post.

The issue here is less one of causality than of degree. Notice that answer choice (D) argues that high levels of education and occupational mobility NECESSARILY erode the community cohesion of an ethnic group. "Necessarily" implies always. Fugita and O’Brien acknowledge that high levels of education and occupational mobility have weakened the the Japanese American community bonds (lines 22-32), but they never imply that such things ALWAYS weaken the community bonds of ANY ethnic group in the U.S.

Does that make sense?

In terms of the other answer choices:

(A) is contradicted. Fugita and O’Brien acknowledge that the assimilation of later generations of Japanese Americans into American society has led to a "weakening of Japanese American ethnic community life" (lines 29-32).

(C) is contradicted. Fugita and O’Brien argue that the Japanese American community persisted because of a sense of "peoplehood," which "extends BEYOND local and family ties" (lines 44-46, emphasis added).

(E) is too broad in scope and unsupported. Fugita and O’Brien write about Japanese Americans, not ethnic groups in general.

That leaves us with (B), a nice and benign answer choice (the LSAT often likes benign-ness on infer-an-opinion questions!). Fugita and O’Brien argue that Japanese Americans maintain strong community bonds (lines 36-39) despite having adapted to American culture (lines 22-32). So yes, such things are possible.