- Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:24 pm
#71533
Hi Shannon,
I think everyone on the thread is in sympathy with some of the frustration about the wording of answer choice A.
Luke's explanation above is by far the best I've read on how answer choice A accurately describes passage B. I don't have much to add to what he wrote, in fact. He's right that it's the specific wording of the answer choice that allows it to be an accurate description: what is "necessary" endorsement of a viewpoint? It's explicit (irresistible) "giving of approval" to that viewpoint, not just implied agreement with that viewpoint. So the question is, can the second paragraph of passage B possibly be read as just an author's description of a (very) strong argument, without explicitly giving approval to that argument? Yes. Mostly because of the framing (as Luke also notes). The paragraph is a description of "one natural way of reasoning," without implying it's the only way of reasoning, and without explicitly stating that it's the author's adopted/preferred way of reasoning. Just as a pure side note, my personal reading of what LSAC is trying to do here is it's trying to show that an author can sympathetically portray an argument in the best possible light without actually accepting (or lending the author's approval to) that argument himself or herself. The best lawyers do this all the time, when they try to anticipate the other side's best case and then craft the best response to it.
In terms of approach, if you've got good reason to prefer the description of Passage A in answer choice A, and also a good reason to eliminate every other answer choice, then you can make yourself more comfortable with answer choice A's description of passage B by focusing on the term "not necessarily," which only means the endorsement is not entirely a matter of necessity. That's something that's easier to prove than any of the other answer choices provide.
I hope this helps!
Jeremy
I think everyone on the thread is in sympathy with some of the frustration about the wording of answer choice A.
Luke's explanation above is by far the best I've read on how answer choice A accurately describes passage B. I don't have much to add to what he wrote, in fact. He's right that it's the specific wording of the answer choice that allows it to be an accurate description: what is "necessary" endorsement of a viewpoint? It's explicit (irresistible) "giving of approval" to that viewpoint, not just implied agreement with that viewpoint. So the question is, can the second paragraph of passage B possibly be read as just an author's description of a (very) strong argument, without explicitly giving approval to that argument? Yes. Mostly because of the framing (as Luke also notes). The paragraph is a description of "one natural way of reasoning," without implying it's the only way of reasoning, and without explicitly stating that it's the author's adopted/preferred way of reasoning. Just as a pure side note, my personal reading of what LSAC is trying to do here is it's trying to show that an author can sympathetically portray an argument in the best possible light without actually accepting (or lending the author's approval to) that argument himself or herself. The best lawyers do this all the time, when they try to anticipate the other side's best case and then craft the best response to it.
In terms of approach, if you've got good reason to prefer the description of Passage A in answer choice A, and also a good reason to eliminate every other answer choice, then you can make yourself more comfortable with answer choice A's description of passage B by focusing on the term "not necessarily," which only means the endorsement is not entirely a matter of necessity. That's something that's easier to prove than any of the other answer choices provide.
I hope this helps!
Jeremy
Jeremy Press
LSAT Instructor and law school admissions consultant
Follow me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/JeremyLSAT
LSAT Instructor and law school admissions consultant
Follow me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/JeremyLSAT