LSAT Forum
4 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- christine.defenbaugh
-
Thanks Received: 585
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 536
- Joined: May 17th, 2013
Re: Q8
Thanks for posting deedubbew!
For a synthesis question that asks us for the author's primary purpose, we must be careful to determine the big picture that the all the information in the passage is presented to support.
In this passage, the author lays out in the first paragraph that Kahlo's work has already been "exhaustively psychoanalyzed", and the meaning interpreted through the lens of her personal life and struggles. But the author immediately thereafter suggests that her artwork's "political content has been less studied." The entire rest of the passage is dedicated to exploring this less-studied political-content.
Since we are analyzing the content of Kahlo's work, we are weighing the merits of a particular "interpretation" - that her work reflected her advocacy of indigenous Mexican culture and Mexican political autonomy (note that this is the correct answer to the Main Point question #1). Thus, the author "advocate[s] an additional interpretation" of her work, which matches (D)!
The word "critique" in (A) implies some analysis of the positives and negatives of Kahlo's style. However, there is no substantive evaluation of her "style" in the passage - there is merely a description of her style, followed by an attempt to explain the meaning of certain elements of her art/style (i.e., that it all connected to her political ideals).
Let's take a brief look at the remaining incorrect answers:
I hope that helps clear things up a bit!
For a synthesis question that asks us for the author's primary purpose, we must be careful to determine the big picture that the all the information in the passage is presented to support.
In this passage, the author lays out in the first paragraph that Kahlo's work has already been "exhaustively psychoanalyzed", and the meaning interpreted through the lens of her personal life and struggles. But the author immediately thereafter suggests that her artwork's "political content has been less studied." The entire rest of the passage is dedicated to exploring this less-studied political-content.
Since we are analyzing the content of Kahlo's work, we are weighing the merits of a particular "interpretation" - that her work reflected her advocacy of indigenous Mexican culture and Mexican political autonomy (note that this is the correct answer to the Main Point question #1). Thus, the author "advocate[s] an additional interpretation" of her work, which matches (D)!
The word "critique" in (A) implies some analysis of the positives and negatives of Kahlo's style. However, there is no substantive evaluation of her "style" in the passage - there is merely a description of her style, followed by an attempt to explain the meaning of certain elements of her art/style (i.e., that it all connected to her political ideals).
Let's take a brief look at the remaining incorrect answers:
- (B) There are not two "opposing theories" in the passage. The theory that her work reflected her political ideals and the theory that it reflected her personal life are not in opposition to one another, they may both well be equally true!
(C) As in (B), there are no "conflcting arguments" to reconcile!
(E) There are no "new discoveries" that have been made.
I hope that helps clear things up a bit!
-
- deedubbew
-
Thanks Received: 4
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 106
- Joined: November 24th, 2013
Re: Q8
The word "critique" in (A) implies some analysis of the positives and negatives of Kahlo's style. However, there is no substantive evaluation of her "style" in the passage - there is merely a description of her style, followed by an attempt to explain the meaning of certain elements of her art/style (i.e., that it all connected to her political ideals).
If there is no positive or negative stance on her style, then how can the author be an "advocate" of this additional interpretation. I think I was also confused by the fact that the answer choice used the word "interpretation" when the last three paragraphs seem more like descriptions.
-
- christine.defenbaugh
-
Thanks Received: 585
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 536
- Joined: May 17th, 2013
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q8
I think I see where you are confused deedubbew!
We have to separate the ideas of style and meaning!
Imagine for a moment that you painted a picture of a tree with a large crow on a branch of the tree. You painted it as stick figures, and in black and white, in the manner of a comic strip.
If I were going to critique your style, I might praise your minimalist design, or I might make fun of your childish comic-strip look. Either way, I'd have something positive or negative to say about the WAY you painted your painting. Note that this doesn't have anything to do with what the painting is supposed to *mean*.
On the other had, if I'm going to talk about interpretation, I'm going to discuss what the crow might represent. Perhaps I advocate an interpretation that the crow represents death, and how death waits for us on a branch of the tree of life. Or perhaps I might advocate for interpreting the painting to merely represent your childhood, and memories of crows in trees outside your childhood home. Or perhaps I would advocate the interpretation that you are simply a Game of Thrones fan, and were trying to portray the three-eyed-raven.
Note that I can advocate an interpretation (i.e., an explanation of the meaning) without critiquing the style.
As for the last three paragraphs of the passage, they absolutely do describe Kahlo's work - but the author also adds in claims of interpretation. Look at the difference between these two phrases:
Deedubbew's painting features a crow on a branch.
Deedubbew's crow emphasizes the proximity of death.
The first is simply a description, but the second adds in my interpretation of the crow.
The author's interpretations are apparent in a few places:
Lines 33-36: "These images...speak not only to Kahlo's personal battle for life, but also to the Mexican struggle to emerge as a nation"
Lines 49-50 "...emphasize the interrelation of life, death, the earth, and the cosmos."
Lines 53-54 "heightening the clash between modern materialism and indigenous tradition"
All of this is about pushing for an interpretation - the author is focused on meaning. There's no positive/negative language about the style.
What do you think?
We have to separate the ideas of style and meaning!
Imagine for a moment that you painted a picture of a tree with a large crow on a branch of the tree. You painted it as stick figures, and in black and white, in the manner of a comic strip.
If I were going to critique your style, I might praise your minimalist design, or I might make fun of your childish comic-strip look. Either way, I'd have something positive or negative to say about the WAY you painted your painting. Note that this doesn't have anything to do with what the painting is supposed to *mean*.
On the other had, if I'm going to talk about interpretation, I'm going to discuss what the crow might represent. Perhaps I advocate an interpretation that the crow represents death, and how death waits for us on a branch of the tree of life. Or perhaps I might advocate for interpreting the painting to merely represent your childhood, and memories of crows in trees outside your childhood home. Or perhaps I would advocate the interpretation that you are simply a Game of Thrones fan, and were trying to portray the three-eyed-raven.
Note that I can advocate an interpretation (i.e., an explanation of the meaning) without critiquing the style.
As for the last three paragraphs of the passage, they absolutely do describe Kahlo's work - but the author also adds in claims of interpretation. Look at the difference between these two phrases:
Deedubbew's painting features a crow on a branch.
Deedubbew's crow emphasizes the proximity of death.
The first is simply a description, but the second adds in my interpretation of the crow.
The author's interpretations are apparent in a few places:
Lines 33-36: "These images...speak not only to Kahlo's personal battle for life, but also to the Mexican struggle to emerge as a nation"
Lines 49-50 "...emphasize the interrelation of life, death, the earth, and the cosmos."
Lines 53-54 "heightening the clash between modern materialism and indigenous tradition"
All of this is about pushing for an interpretation - the author is focused on meaning. There's no positive/negative language about the style.
What do you think?
4 posts Page 1 of 1