Questions that ask about the organization of the passage want us to characterize the overall structural flow.
If we've already got a "Passage Map" in our heads, the correct answer should accord pretty well with that.
One tip I personally use for these questions:
The answer choices often start off the same/similar ways. A lot of times there isn't any divergence between answers until you get to the later ingredients. So I sometimes read the choices backwards, to see if the last ingredient makes sense. I still verify the whole answer, but sometimes scanning for acceptable final ingredients is a good way to save some time reading the answers.
What was the final ingredient in this passage?
The author's evaluation of legal plans and the overall negative consequences she predicts they'll have.
1st pass - (just checking the 'last ingredient')
A) no good. no proposed refinements were made.
B) no good. author was expressing DISapproval.
C) "rejected" seems harsh, but it's close enough to keep for now.
D) "argumentation" is a good match for "evaluation". Keep.
E) no good. "presentation of further data" is a poor match for "author's evalution".
Now I'd check (C) vs. (D).
C) 2nd ingredient seems weird. We never discussed how to "implement" a prepaid legal plan.
D) Perfect. Topic background --> other people's pros and cons --> author's evaluation.
LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
-
- dukeag
-
Thanks Received: 2
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 17
- Joined: April 22nd, 2014
Re: Q4
Here are my thoughts:
A: One thing I noticed was wrong about this answer is that it states that a proposal of refinements in a policy is made in the later paragraph. But that does not happen. The author does not suggest or lay out a way to improve the CAW plan. He simply states the negatives of the plan.
B: Wrong because there is no "comparison" being made between the CAW plan and some other plan or related "phenomena"
C: Tricky. Almost chose this answer. But wrong because first of all there is no proposal going on here. There is a plan, a discussion of the plan, an evaluation of the plan, but no proposal being discussed. Also, the author does not recommend anything towards the later paragraph. He does describe the negative effects of the CAW plan, but he does not recommend anything, much less a rejection of the plan. Criticism is not tantamount to rejection.
D: Right. The "innovation" is the CAW plan, which started in late 1985. The plan can be considered an "innovation," perhaps not only because the plan was something newly introduced but also because the options provided by the CAW plan are (perhaps) unique and unprecedented. The "reasoning against and reasoning favoring that innovation" clearly refers to the lawyer's concerns about and the CAW plan directors' defense of the CAW plan. And the author does finally give his own argument or evaluation concerning the "innovation," or plan.
E: Also tricky, but ultimately rejected because the author give his own arguments concerning the plan, and "presentation of further data" does not really match what the author is trying to do at the end of the article.
A: One thing I noticed was wrong about this answer is that it states that a proposal of refinements in a policy is made in the later paragraph. But that does not happen. The author does not suggest or lay out a way to improve the CAW plan. He simply states the negatives of the plan.
B: Wrong because there is no "comparison" being made between the CAW plan and some other plan or related "phenomena"
C: Tricky. Almost chose this answer. But wrong because first of all there is no proposal going on here. There is a plan, a discussion of the plan, an evaluation of the plan, but no proposal being discussed. Also, the author does not recommend anything towards the later paragraph. He does describe the negative effects of the CAW plan, but he does not recommend anything, much less a rejection of the plan. Criticism is not tantamount to rejection.
D: Right. The "innovation" is the CAW plan, which started in late 1985. The plan can be considered an "innovation," perhaps not only because the plan was something newly introduced but also because the options provided by the CAW plan are (perhaps) unique and unprecedented. The "reasoning against and reasoning favoring that innovation" clearly refers to the lawyer's concerns about and the CAW plan directors' defense of the CAW plan. And the author does finally give his own argument or evaluation concerning the "innovation," or plan.
E: Also tricky, but ultimately rejected because the author give his own arguments concerning the plan, and "presentation of further data" does not really match what the author is trying to do at the end of the article.
3 posts Page 1 of 1