Q7

[jpchris3]

Hi,

Is (B) wrong because it talks about social vision in literature in general, and therefore is too broad in scope?

Thanks

[matthewyoung2008]

Yes, I think that's one viable reason.

Another reason why B is wrong is because the author sort of suggests that the social vision is indeed relevant to critics because, "...critics often balk at this vision because Mphahlele provides no road maps for bringing such a future about" (38-40). If the social vision were truly irrelevant to critics, they would not balk about it.

Of course, the above quote reinforces answer choice D as the correct answer, as well.

[demetri.blaisdell]

Good question and a good answer. I think lines 37-40 are the best evidence for why (B) is wrong. It also supports (D). Basically, the critics wouldn't criticize not having a plan or roadmap unless they wanted one. We don't know that including one would be enough to satisfy them but this is a reasonable inference.

The other wrong answers aren't too tempting:

(A) is contradicted. In lines 41-43, Mphahlele rejects the biography/fiction dichotomy.

(C) is unsupported. I guess if it were in the passage, it would be somewhere in the first paragraph. But it isn't, so (C) is wrong.

(E) is unsupported. The critics might think this but the author is defending Mphahlele's blending of styles.

I hope this extra explanation helps. You two seem to have it pretty well under control but let me know if you have any further questions.

Demetri

[shirando21]

Good question and a good answer. I think lines 37-40 are the best evidence for why (B) is wrong. It also supports (D). Basically, the critics wouldn't criticize not having a plan or roadmap unless they wanted one. We don't know that including one would be enough to satisfy them but this is a reasonable inference.

The other wrong answers aren't too tempting:

(A) is contradicted. In lines 41-43, Mphahlele rejects the biography/fiction dichotomy.

(C) is unsupported. I guess if it were in the passage, it would be somewhere in the first paragraph. But it isn't, so (C) is wrong.

(E) is unsupported. The critics might think this but the author is defending Mphahlele's blending of styles.

I hope this extra explanation helps. You two seem to have it pretty well under control but let me know if you have any further questions.

Demetri

But this question does not say the answer should be the author's attitude or the critics'. How do we know for E,whose point we should choose for this question?

[shirando21]

Good question and a good answer. I think lines 37-40 are the best evidence for why (B) is wrong. It also supports (D). Basically, the critics wouldn't criticize not having a plan or roadmap unless they wanted one. We don't know that including one would be enough to satisfy them but this is a reasonable inference.

The other wrong answers aren't too tempting:

(A) is contradicted. In lines 41-43, Mphahlele rejects the biography/fiction dichotomy.

(C) is unsupported. I guess if it were in the passage, it would be somewhere in the first paragraph. But it isn't, so (C) is wrong.

(E) is unsupported. The critics might think this but the author is defending Mphahlele's blending of styles.

I hope this extra explanation helps. You two seem to have it pretty well under control but let me know if you have any further questions.

Demetri

Also, for B, isn't the vision the critics balk at the vision of the future, not social vision, which appears in line 34. and B talks about social vision, we kind of don't know the critics opinion on that.

[ohthatpatrick]

Good questions.

It's fair for us to use "social vision" and "vision for the future" interchangeably, I think.

In line 33, the passage refers to Mphahlele's "social vision". When line 37 (the next sentence) brings up his "vision of the future", it's safe to assume we're still talking about the same thing, especially given that Mphahlele's focus on "the social message he advances" (line 17) is reinforced throughout the passage. It's fair to think that his vision for the future includes his social vision/message.

It's great that you're examining the disparity between passage language and answer choice language, but be careful about being TOO picky. The answer choice won't always give us verbatim re-phrases of details from the passage, so we'll sometimes have to live with very close synonyms.

In terms of your "author vs. critics" question, you would be safer going with the author's point of view if you're trying to justify an opinion . If you're trying to justify a fact, then you'll have to find a fact in the passage to support it. If you're trying to support an opinion ("based on the passage"), you would want to hear "the passage's opinion", which is the author's.

More than anything, we can just eliminate (B) because 'irrelevant' is way too extreme of an idea. There is no line reference in the passage that would support that certain critics find the social vision contained in a work irrelevant .

Q7 is an Inference question, testing us on some specific line reference. For those types of questions, it behooves us to be very wary of the extreme terms in any answer and to not pick an answer with an extreme term unless we can find a correspondingly strong term in the passage to support it.

Hope this helps.

[huskybins]

Line 37 generally says: M does NOT provide road maps --> Critics balks at the vision M tries to bring about
While answer D says: M were to provide road maps --> Critics would accept such a vision

It seems to me the above inference is like the form of "A--> B" that can entail "NOT A --> NOT B". I noticed that answer D's wording uses virtual tense to make it look not so strong, rather, just implying some possibility, but I am still curious to wonder if the above form of inference is valid in general for inference questions in LSAT.

Thanks for any feedback!

Good questions.

It's fair for us to use "social vision" and "vision for the future" interchangeably, I think.

In line 33, the passage refers to Mphahlele's "social vision". When line 37 (the next sentence) brings up his "vision of the future", it's safe to assume we're still talking about the same thing, especially given that Mphahlele's focus on "the social message he advances" (line 17) is reinforced throughout the passage. It's fair to think that his vision for the future includes his social vision/message.

It's great that you're examining the disparity between passage language and answer choice language, but be careful about being TOO picky. The answer choice won't always give us verbatim re-phrases of details from the passage, so we'll sometimes have to live with very close synonyms.

In terms of your "author vs. critics" question, you would be safer going with the author's point of view if you're trying to justify an opinion . If you're trying to justify a fact, then you'll have to find a fact in the passage to support it. If you're trying to support an opinion ("based on the passage"), you would want to hear "the passage's opinion", which is the author's.

More than anything, we can just eliminate (B) because 'irrelevant' is way too extreme of an idea. There is no line reference in the passage that would support that certain critics find the social vision contained in a work irrelevant .

Q7 is an Inference question, testing us on some specific line reference. For those types of questions, it behooves us to be very wary of the extreme terms in any answer and to not pick an answer with an extreme term unless we can find a correspondingly strong term in the passage to support it.

Hope this helps.

[ohthatpatrick]

Very much so!

It's annoying, because as you suggested, we think of it like an illegal negation.

But if a question stem is hedged wording, like
which is "most supported" / "most implied" / "most likely to agree",
you'll frequently see LSAT reward this sort of translation in RC.

If they identify that causal factor X led to effect/judgment Y, then it supports the idea that
"if X were not true, then Y might not be true".

If a passage said "Redskins fans embraced the new name because hall of fame quarterback Joe Theismann got behind it", we could say the passage suggests that
(A) without Theismann's support, the new name would not be as well embraced