Hi -- I was hoping someone could step in on this one to explain AC A and why it's correct. I'm thinking the right AC's support is line 25-26: 'however, the core of the language brought to the U.S. by the Chinese people has remained intact." What threw me off was the latter part of that paragraph where it states "In fact, normal conversations can be conducted fairly readily...PROVIDED that they speak the same traditional Chinese dialect as each other." I am prob overthinking this given it's a "according to the passage" #4 questions but...
Any guidance would be great.
Thanks
pK
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- priyanka.krishnamurthy
-
Thanks Received: 3
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 16
- Joined: November 29th, 2015
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q4
Yeah, since it's an "according to the passage" and it gives us keywords, we should try to find this moment in the passage, so that we can zero in on the Support Window for this question.
Unfortunately, these keywords are pretty broad, so there's support for talking about traditional dialects in P2 and P3.
If we relate this to the main point, we'd think something like:
The author was saying that American-Chinese is not its own dialect, it's just a batch of new words that people who live in San Francisco need to know. You still need to speak the same traditional dialect to understand each other well.
(A) as you said, lines 25-29 are great support for the idea that the American Chinese is just adding onto ("supplementing") the traditional dialects, not replacing them.
(B) The author doesn't argue that dialects blur together. In fact, he says towards the end that if you spoke with someone from a different traditional dialect, you wouldn't be able to get by on just using 'the San Francisco batch of words'.
You basically wouldn't understand each other
(or, as a lawyer would put it, "Mutual intelligibility wouldn't be guaranteed")
(C) The author mentioned that there were subtle differences in sound and structure, from dialect to dialect. But this says that "coming to the US changes the tone and structure of the dialect", which was never said.
(D) "abandoned" is way too strong a claim to support here. People become FAMILIAR with Cantonese through media, but that doesn't imply they're abandoning anything.
(E) Supplemented, not supplanted. There's no support for the idea that traditional languages LOSE anything.
Hope this helps.
Unfortunately, these keywords are pretty broad, so there's support for talking about traditional dialects in P2 and P3.
If we relate this to the main point, we'd think something like:
The author was saying that American-Chinese is not its own dialect, it's just a batch of new words that people who live in San Francisco need to know. You still need to speak the same traditional dialect to understand each other well.
(A) as you said, lines 25-29 are great support for the idea that the American Chinese is just adding onto ("supplementing") the traditional dialects, not replacing them.
(B) The author doesn't argue that dialects blur together. In fact, he says towards the end that if you spoke with someone from a different traditional dialect, you wouldn't be able to get by on just using 'the San Francisco batch of words'.
You basically wouldn't understand each other
(or, as a lawyer would put it, "Mutual intelligibility wouldn't be guaranteed")
(C) The author mentioned that there were subtle differences in sound and structure, from dialect to dialect. But this says that "coming to the US changes the tone and structure of the dialect", which was never said.
(D) "abandoned" is way too strong a claim to support here. People become FAMILIAR with Cantonese through media, but that doesn't imply they're abandoning anything.
(E) Supplemented, not supplanted. There's no support for the idea that traditional languages LOSE anything.
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1