The correct answer choice is (D), correct?
(E) is tempting but ultimately wrong because there no mention of "poetic form", albeit we can classify his divergence from other typical work as "innovative".
Feedback anyone?
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q5
You shouldn't need to check with us for correct answers. They should be listed at the back of the pdf or book you're reading from. (are you looking up every single correct answer by finding the forum post?)
Since we don't have a complete explanation up for this one yet, let me write one up.
Question Type: Purpose of Detail
keywords: in order to, primarily to, serves to
These questions point us to a detail, but since they are asking about WHY the author included that detail (not about WHAT the detail actually said), the correct answer will usually paraphrase the bigger idea that bookends this detail.
Most of these will sound like the more general sentence that came right before the detail. It's helpful to keep in mind the author's overall purpose in this paragraph, and it's helpful to look out for extreme language in the answer choices.
If I were pre-phrasing Q5, I would start with the first sentence, which is a broader claim:
Asian-American poetry from Hawaii comes in 2 flavors (multicultural paradise or Asian-American themes).
The sentence we're being asked about, and the adjective "striking" in particular, is just stressing that Wing Tek Lum's poetry seems to be neither of these.
So my pre-phrase might be that the author uses the term "striking" to "stress how Wing Tek Lum's poetry does not easily conform to either of the typical categories for Asian American poetry from Hawaii".
(A) "forceful and contentious" is strong language. red flag. it's also trappy, since "striking" and "forceful" sound kind of similar, if you didn't bother to actually read 'striking' in context.
(B) "hasn't been properly analyzed" seems out of scope from those first two sentences.
(C) there's no contrast between Lum's current vs. previous work. The intended contrast is between Lum's work and typical Asian American poetry from Hawaii.
(D) Looks good. That's basically exactly what the sentence says.
(E) "innovative" makes it kinda tempting, although we don't yet know that Lum innovated anything. We just know that his poetry doesn't fit into two stereotypical categories. It might fit into a different, established category that just isn't either of the two typically associated with Hawaiian-Asian poetry. Plus, there is nothing about 'poetic form' in this section of the passage.
Hope this helps.
Since we don't have a complete explanation up for this one yet, let me write one up.
Question Type: Purpose of Detail
keywords: in order to, primarily to, serves to
These questions point us to a detail, but since they are asking about WHY the author included that detail (not about WHAT the detail actually said), the correct answer will usually paraphrase the bigger idea that bookends this detail.
Most of these will sound like the more general sentence that came right before the detail. It's helpful to keep in mind the author's overall purpose in this paragraph, and it's helpful to look out for extreme language in the answer choices.
If I were pre-phrasing Q5, I would start with the first sentence, which is a broader claim:
Asian-American poetry from Hawaii comes in 2 flavors (multicultural paradise or Asian-American themes).
The sentence we're being asked about, and the adjective "striking" in particular, is just stressing that Wing Tek Lum's poetry seems to be neither of these.
So my pre-phrase might be that the author uses the term "striking" to "stress how Wing Tek Lum's poetry does not easily conform to either of the typical categories for Asian American poetry from Hawaii".
(A) "forceful and contentious" is strong language. red flag. it's also trappy, since "striking" and "forceful" sound kind of similar, if you didn't bother to actually read 'striking' in context.
(B) "hasn't been properly analyzed" seems out of scope from those first two sentences.
(C) there's no contrast between Lum's current vs. previous work. The intended contrast is between Lum's work and typical Asian American poetry from Hawaii.
(D) Looks good. That's basically exactly what the sentence says.
(E) "innovative" makes it kinda tempting, although we don't yet know that Lum innovated anything. We just know that his poetry doesn't fit into two stereotypical categories. It might fit into a different, established category that just isn't either of the two typically associated with Hawaiian-Asian poetry. Plus, there is nothing about 'poetic form' in this section of the passage.
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1