Passage - General Questions

[Administrator]

Passage Discussion

VIEWSTAMP Analysis:


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[alexisjay26]

This passage confused me a lot.
I will try to break down how I viewed the passage.

Paragraph 1: Mario García claims that the Mexican American Generation was more radical and politically diverse than they have been credited for. The author states that García’s study to prove this point has two flaws.
For this paragraph sentence 2 confused me. What does the activist in the 30’s and 40’s being able to predict the reforms that the group of activist in the 60’s and 70’s would try to bring about have to do with the first group being more radical and politically diverse?

Paragraph 2: The author discusses the first flaw and states that García’s analysis of evidence to show the political diversity isn’t consistent. However, the author then says that García undermines the idea political diversity by trying to say that there was a consensus among various groups.
Is the author trying to say that while there was political diversity, García doesn’t do a good job of showing it?

Paragraph 3: García exaggerates how much these activists represented the ethnic Mexican population in the US at the time.
To be honest, I wasn’t sure how this paragraph fit in at all.

All in all, I still ended up getting 4 out of the 6 questions correct for this passage however I guessed a lot. The passage as whole kind of went over my head.
Can someone please break this down for me?
Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

Your overall breakdown of the structure of the passage looks pretty good, alexisjay. I'll try to answer your more specific questions here.

What does the activist in the 30’s and 40’s being able to predict the reforms that the group of activist in the 60’s and 70’s would try to bring about have to do with the first group being more radical and politically diverse?

Garcia was writing about the group of activists between the 30's and the 60's, saying the were more active than historians previously gave them credit for. Not that they were more active than the reformers ho followed them in the 60's and 70's, but just more active than previously thought. The author cites this bit of information to show that Garcia wasn't entirely wrong, and that he did have some good points and evidence to support them. This server to soften the tone so that it is not completely dismissive of Garcia's study.

Is the author trying to say that while there was political diversity, García doesn’t do a good job of showing it?

That's exactly right! The author is telling us that Garcia not only didn't do a good job on this point, but that he actually undermined himself a little bit. That's one of the two major flaws in Garcia's study, according to our author. He was "inconsistent," meaning his claims appear to contradict themselves.

To be honest, I wasn’t sure how this paragraph fit in at all.

The last paragraph is all about Garcia's other major flaw, an overemphasis on the degree to which the earlier activists represented the general view of Mexican Americans of the period without sufficient evidence to back his claims. The author tells us what Garcia attempts to do in his study in discussing these early leaders, and proceeds to tell us why his attempt is not persuasive.

Nice work on the questions, despite your struggles with the material! I think you had a pretty good grasp of it, despite what you think. Sometimes we come away from a passage with only a vague notion of the details, and that's okay, because we aren't really being tested on those details but on the structure, and the tone, and the viewpoints, and the main point. As long as you can find those, don't let the specifics of the topic get in your way!

[oliviaguerra7]

Hello!

This passage is a recommendation from the 2023 August & September Crystal Ball. Could this passage and the questions be analyzed so that we may learn how to best approach it before the upcoming LSATs? Thank you guys for your time!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Sure, I can give a quick run-down, oliviaguerra7.

This passage is essentially a review of a study done by a particular researcher, Mario Garcia. The author has a critical view of the research done by Garcia, while also being respectful of the way in which Garcia's study added to the scholarly discourse. The passage begins by introducing the prior view on the political activism of the generation of Mexican Americans living in the United States between 1930 and 1960. The passage continues by providing two different critiques of Garcia's study, each contained in a paragraph.

The first concern is that the population during that period had significantly differing views on politics and assimilation. Garcia's theory that the population was fairly uniformly in favor of specific civil rights goals was undermined by his descriptions of the differing political groups at that time, each of which had their own views. The second concern is that the views of the activists are not necessarily reflective of the views of the general community at that time.

Viewpoints: There were several different viewpoints. There was the viewpoint of the author (as always). This viewpoint was generally appreciative of the work of Garcia, while also noting areas of critique. There was also Garcia's viewpoint, as well as those of the militant Chicanos of the 60s and 70s, and the viewpoints of the different portions of the Mexican American Generation. Finally, there was the traditional view discussed at the start of the passage.

Structure: The passage begins with an introduction to a traditional view about the beliefs of the Mexican American population in the 1930s through 1960s. It continues by describing new research by Garcia that indicates some more radical views and positions of this group. The passage then describes two critiques of the work done by Garcia.

Tone: The passage is critical but respectfully so.

Argument: See discussion introducing this post.

Main point: The passage argues that while the work of Garcia has illuminated some of the more radical views of the pre-1960s activists, it fails to address the variety of viewpoints and perspectives of the Mexican Americans between 1930s and 1960s.

Hope that helps!

[TootyFrooty]

This passage was one of the most difficult I've ever attempted. I got all wrong except for one. Usually I get about 1-3 wrong on a passage sometimes, depending on difficulty. In this one I didn't even know what a chicano was, nevertheless a militant chicano.

What is your recommendation at getting better at difficult passages? I really struggled to understand this passage. it felt like a foreign language.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi TootyFrooty,

The short answer is that you do the harder reading comp passages the exact same way as the easier and medium passages, except perhaps taking things a bit more slowly to read and understand the concepts. Whenever possible, try to simplify the concepts in your own words to aid your understanding. Also remember that any specialized term beyond general knowledge either will be explained to you in the context of the passage or else it isn't necessary to understanding the passage.

For example, you mentioned that you didn't know who a Chicano was. The good news is that you don't even need to know who a Chicano is to understand this passage and answer the questions. The Chicanos are only mentioned once in the passage. The passage isn't about the militant Chicanos. It's about the "Mexican American Generation," who were a group of Mexican American political activists between 1930-1960s. Again, you aren't expected to know who this group is before reading the passage, it is defined for you in the passage (lines 1-5). More specifically, the passage is about a review of a book by Mario Garcia that focusses on this group and how the author of the passage finds two flaws in Garcia's arguments.

The militant Chicanos are only referenced once (lines 7-10), They are a group in the 1960s and 1970s that had similar concerns to the Mexican American activists of 1930-1960s. We know this because the Mexican American activists of the 1930-1960s anticipated many of the reforms of the militant Chicanos. That's literally all that you need to know about them. There is only one question about them (question 23), and it can be answered just from the little info that we are given in the passage.

One other general point is that if you find that you are missing a lot of questions (say about 10 or more in a RC section, for example) and you are attempting to complete all 4 passages but are rushing, you may find that just tackling 3 passages and really getting those questions correct (and then guessing on the other passage, ideally the one that appears to be the hardest) may actually improve your overall performance.