#14 - Primary Purpose

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14542)

The correct answer choice is (C)

The question stem asks for the primary purpose of the passage. The main point is prephrased above,
in the summary of the passage.

Answer choice (A): Although it is clear that the author believes the prevailing perspective to be
unfounded, the intent of the passage is not to determine the correct hypothesis, but rather to suggest a
framework from which to study the phenomenon.

Answer choice (B): The author’s purpose is not so much to discredit the evidence offered, but
to point out that the prevailing view seems to be based on ungrounded assumptions rather than
empirical evidence, and to suggest a different perspective.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Part of the author’s purpose, as prephrased
above, is to argue that the prevailing specialists would be well served to take on a different
perspective with regard to the ramifications of importing programming to developing nations, a
perspective which takes empirical evidence into consideration.

Answer choice (D): Since this passage only involves the methodological weaknesses of one
discipline, this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): Like answer choice (D), this choice cannot be correct, because the author of the
stimulus discusses only one discipline.

[sqmusgrave]

Hello! I'm confused on this one. I chose B over C because while it's true that the author spends a good amount of time suggesting a methodological approach, I didn't think that was why he wrote the passage. Instead it seemed like he wrote the passage to challenge a view, and explaining a new methodological approach functioned to support the idea that the original view was flaws (by saying "your view is flawed here is how to improve").
So since the methodological part seemed to support the thesis that the current view had shortcomings, then ultimately the author's purpose would have to revolve around the current views shortcomings.

Can you help me understand why this reasoning was incorrect and how I could change my thought process to avoid this error in the future? Maybe some key words that should have tipped me off? I'm really at a loss for how this could be the "main" purpose.

Thanks!

[Chandler H]

Hi sqmusgrave,

Good question. In this passage, taking into consideration the organization of the paragraphs within the passage is hugely important. I think you hit on the answer in your question—the author caps off the passage by advocating for a new approach towards understanding imported productions. One tip-off is to look to the last paragraph, which often contains the conclusion of the argument. In this case, that is indeed helpful; the last paragraph is kind of the author's "call to action," laying out a plan for a new model and calling on communications researchers to adopt it.

For another clue, look to the first sentence of the third paragraph: "An empirical approach ... is needed." Again, this is a specific conclusion drawn by the author on the basis of the premises introduced in the first two paragraphs.

Hope this helps!

[lsatstudent99966]

Hi there,

Regarding answer choice (E), I thought the two disciplines in this passage were anthropology (paragraph 2) and international communication.

Is (E) wrong because it does not express the main point of the passage?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi lsatstudent99966!

Yes, (E) is incorrect because it doesn't express the main point of the passage. A problem with (E) is that it just mentions "compar[ing]" two different disciplines, because the author does more than that. The author is clear that one discipline should adopt the methodology of another discipline, so rather than only comparing, the author seems to be endorsing one over the other, or at least saying that international communications specialists could gain by borrowing from the tools of anthropologists.