Q3

[shirando21]

we can find clues about authors attitude in p3.
from line 45-49, the attitude is not very approval, it is talking about the weakness of UDHR.
from line 50-56, the attitude seems more supportive and approval.

So I just picked C as neutral.

I am not good with attitude questions.

can anyone explain what rule should apply here to differenciate qualified approval and absolute neutrality

thanks.

[maryadkins]

The key to your question here is asking where the author ultimately falls.

It's important to understand here that the author ends up falling on the "pro" side of the UDHR debate. (The word "nevertheless" in line 50 lets us know that even though the author has acknowledged the UDHR's weaknesses, what he/she says next is what he/she "really" thinks.)

Conceding that there are problems isn't the same as being neutral on the issue. If you are able to place the author on one side of the scale, you should pick an attitude that falls on that side of the scale, too. Is he positive? Pick a positive noun (even if it's tempered by a less positive adjective). Is he negative? Go negative.

Rarely is the author actually neutral, and when he/she is, it tends to be fairly clear.

[shirando21]

Thanks a lot, Mary.

So only when it is 50-50 can be called neutral, if it is 51-49, there's an attitude of approval of the 51 part, right?

[ohthatpatrick]

Since we could never really quantify attitude as 50-50 vs. 51-49, I assume you just mean "if the balance of opinion lands on one side or the other, I shouldn't pick neutral". That is correct.

In fact, you should just really never pick neutral.

In all the attitude questions ever asked about in RC, there might be one in which actual scholarly neutrality was correct.

Neutrality as an RC attitude really means "lack of attitude". It means the author never introduced any opinionated or evaluative claims.

So if the entire passage is dry and informative (or only other people's opinions, not the author's), then we could call the passage neutral.

But if the author has ANY sort of pro/con language, there's attitude. The test almost never asks attitude questions on a totally neutral passage. And when they DO ask attitude questions, the trap answers are typically TOO positive or TOO negative. As you see, the author's who display attitude often convey a sense of ambivalence by mentioning both good and bad things. But the test expects you come away with the correct "on the whole, is this author positive/negative" impression.

In broad strokes, avoid extreme positive, extreme negative, and neutrality.

[shirando21]

Thank you for sharing the experience, you are super, Mary!

[raynaim26]

You are super Patrick!!!!

[marykatemoller]

How do we know that the author is "qualified?" That is why I did not choose B.

[ohthatpatrick]

You might be thinking of the wrong definition of 'qualified' (i.e. "possessing relevant training or experience").

That is NOT what 'qualified' means here. It's very important you're familiar with the other definition because LSAT frequently uses it.

If I say "I hate sports", that is an unqualified statement.

What unqualified means here is "a universal, blanket statement".

If I say "I hate sports, other than basketball", that is a qualified statement.

A qualification is like a caveat, or an exception. I'm saying, "other than basketball, I hate all sports".

If they described an author's attitude as "unqualified approval", it would mean "total, complete 100% approval".

"Qualified approval" means "I approve, but with some qualms, some reservations, some exceptions".

And of course, around line 46, you see the author's qualms about the UDHR.

Hope this helps.