We are supposed to describe the organization of the first paragraph of the passage. The first thing I do is take a quick glance back at the first paragraph and think about what is happening in it.
- - There are three distinct categories of studies about Byron
- "These studies cannot be valuable unless they do X."
- Author explains why he/she made this claim.
I think that these three things are all the building blocks and are all pretty important. However, I am having trouble figuring out exactly what is important in these kinds of questions. I'll talk specifically about this question and then maybe deal with it in the abstract later.
- (A) "A generalization is made" is a bit sketchy. I would say that a generalization would work more like the following: "Many believe that Manhattan students tend to get a 180. However, the LSAT data from this past June administration suggests that students of Manhattan do not actually receive the scores people suppose they do - they actually receive a 181 because of their ingenuity during the writing sample." Here we have a generalization "many believe...180" that is quickly refuted. I simply don't see a generalization in this passage's first paragraph.
(B) Meh. Keep it.
(C) Meh. Keep it.
(D) Whoa! Way off base! There is no "historical trend" and we definitely have no predictions about the "future!" This is not a temporal passage!
(E) Rival classification? I have no indication that these studies are "rivals" and what about the term "classification?" I don't think "classification" applies to "studies."
So here is where I am at the crossroads. I have two answer choices that both look good. I am going to reread them again once or twice and see if anything jumps out at me. Upon a second read through, nothing is really coming to me. Do I look back at the passage? I chose to do so.
Here is what tripped me up. When the author says "such" after a list of three studies, what is the author referring to? The 3rd and last study? All the studies? This is why I started to hesitate because I didn't really feel like the author was JUST talking about "Byron's poetry" right here, but rather, the author was talking about understanding the value of all these studies. Does that make sense? I didn't feel like the author singled out any one type of study. Am I wrong?
I eliminated (B) for one reason (though I found another reason during this review). "...chooses the most convincing one" makes it seem like the author took ONE side out of THREE possible sides. In other words, the author basically would have said that, "only one of these studies are convincing - the other two are not." I don't really think that happened. Instead, it seems that the author says, "Okay. There are three studies. Now in order for any of these studies to be valuable (or perhaps, in order for one of these studies - the study of Byron's poetry - to be valuable) there must be some understanding of Byron the author." Do you see what I mean?
In addition, I don't know if "theories" is analogous with "studies." That might have been simpler to just eliminate (B) that way
I chose (C) because it doesn't seem to "take sides" the way that (B) does. The author doesn't pin one study up against the other two but rather discusses the only way in which these studies are valuable.
What do you think of all of this reasoning? I am sorry this is so long.
Analyzing this Question Type in the Abstract
How do you know exactly what is important in these question types, especially when discussing the "organization of the whole passage" type questions? Sometimes the credited answer choice choice will leave out what I believe is the conclusion of the whole passage _ some kind of "call to action" or perhaps how something exists in the greater context of the world. It just seems odd and I know that there is a way to more fully understand how to attack such questions. This applies to main idea questions as well.
Any help is greatly appreciated! Though I might just eliminate this abstract question and make a whole new thread on it.
