#2 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Subject Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10843)

The correct answer choice is (A)

This Must Be True, Subject Perspective question requires you to understand Ginsburg’s perspective regarding Weiner’s position: Ginsburg is identified as an opponent of Weiner’s views, making for a very straightforward prephrase.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Weiner believes that the use of video technology represents an imposition of Western values on indigenous peoples, whereas Ginsburg is a fundamental opponent of this position.

Answer choice (B): We have no reason to believe that Ginsburg’s opposition to Weiner is reluctant, so this choice fails the Fact Test.

Answer choice (C): Ginsburg is clearly opposed to Weiner’s views; her disapproval is not necessarily “mild.”

Answer choice (D): Ginsburg is not neutral regarding Weiner’s position; she is an explicit opponent of it, so this cannot be the right answer choice.

Answer choice (E): This is an Opposite Answer: Ginsburg is an opponent of Weiner’s—she does not take a supportive interest in his position.

[165OrBust]

Hello PS community!

I was really reluctant to choose A on this one because Ginsburg conceded the point that Western objects entering into cultural circulation has not been neutral, which to me implies that she did not “fundamentally reject” Weiner’s position.

Essentially, I looked at this from the formal logic framework of “fundamentally rejects” = “must be true”. Since “conceding a point” demonstrates that Ginsberg accepted an element of Weiner’s argument, my formal logic radar told me that “fundamentally rejects” must be incorrect.

Obviously I’m wrong.

Is it safe to say, then, that - for the purpose of taking the LSAT - the fact that a subject concedes a point to their “opponent” is irrelevant to the overal tone of their viewpoint?

Thanks!
Liz

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, Liz, and I'll do my best to help. First, I wouldn't say that conceding a point is irrelevant to the overall tone, because that is too broad a statement. Conceding a point may very well indicate a conciliatory tone, or a respectful one, etc.

The issue here isn't so much the tone, but the strength of the position taken, since the question is about the position taken by Ginsburg. Weiner says "video technologies inevitably purvey a Western ontology." Ginsburg says "non-Western indigenous peoples can use Western media without adopting the conventions of Western culture." She concedes a point along the way, admitting that it will have some impact, but at the core Ginsburg is saying "Sorry, Jim, you're wrong, it's not inevitable." A good prephrase here would be that Ginsburg's stance is one of opposition or disagreement.

She isn't reluctant, although she is somewhat respectful. Her disagreement isn't mild, and she doesn't so much disapprove as she disagrees. Answer B sounds to me something like "gosh, I don't think that's very good." It's not that. It's a flat-out "nope." That makes A the best answer here.

Focus on the position taken, rather than the tone used, and I think you'll have a better grasp of this one. I hope that helps!

[165OrBust]

Thanks Adam!

I was totally overthinking it! Your advice actually makes me feel a lot more comfortable with future similar questions - I can’t thank you enough

Happy New Year!
Liz

[JoshuaDEL]

Hello,

I was deciding on between A and B. I do believe that Ginsburg’s stance is a strong disagreement with Weiner's because of the strong word "betray" in P3 felt by the group that Ginsburg was part of. However, I decided to go with B because in P3, when the paragraph starts exploring Ginsburg's specific stance, not the group in general's stance, it starts off by saying "concedes". So I understood it as Ginsburg "reluctantly" disagreeing with Weiner because Ginsburg seems to agree on some grounds to Weiner's argument, rather than "fundamental disagreement". Could you explain how "concedes" comes into play when deciding between A and B if it has any significance?

[Poonam Agrawal]

Hi Joshua!

Adam's post above does a great job at explaining the difference between answer choice (A) and answer choice (B). Ginsburg does concede one tangential aspect of Weiner's position; however, at its core, Ginsburg's argument is in strong disagreement with that of Weiner's. If you were to summarize both people's arguments in a few words, you could say:

Weiner: Video technology costs indigenous peoples their cultural identity by making them Westernized.
Ginsburg: Indigenous peoples can use video technology without adopting Western culture.

They are both fundamentally at odds with one another. Although Ginsburg accepts that Western objects tend to not be neutral, she firmly maintains that Western technology will not inevitably cost indigenous peoples their cultural identity - a fundamental rejection of Weiner's argument. You want to focus the two people's overall arguments when answering this question - the concession is a very minor part of Ginsburg's overall position. Hope that helps!

[frk215]

Hey folks! I was actually stuck between A and C on this one. A lot of reading questions seems like they force me to weigh flaws between two options, as I try to figure out which flaw is fatal.

With A, I thought it could be correct because "rejection" felt the most accurate to me. At its core, Ginsburg just disagrees with Weiner. But the flaw: is it really fundamental? To me, fundamental is very strong phrasing that shouts 'nope, sorry, you're wrong in every way.' But in the passage she says "concedes that no Western object that has entered cultural circulation since the fifteenth century has been neutral." Does the word fundamental allow for concessions of any kind? In my immediate analysis, I decided that the answer was no.

Then there was C. I thought it could be correct because the inclusion of a concession does lessen the sharpness of the tone— does that make it necessarily mild? Maybe, maybe not. Disapproval, the second part of the answer, didn't feel as correct as rejection though (my pre-phrase was just 'she disagrees') . But then I justified it by saying hey if she disapproves then logically she must also disagree. By including the concept of disagreement within disapproval, I chose C.

But at its core, I just really did not like either answer. I found that this happens to me frequently, especially with this type of question. Can you folks provide any advice as to how to make the right choice in questions like this?

[Adam Tyson]

As we discussed earlier in this thread, frk215, that one concession does nothing to change the fact that Ginsburg thinks Weiner is wrong. She says that his position is "little more than boilerplate technological determinism." There's nothing mild about that; she is completely shutting him down on his main conclusion. The concession is about a minor point, a side issue almost. And her stance is more than just disapproval, as if he has done something for which he should be a little ashamed. It's disagreement; he is wrong.

When you find yourself trying to justify an answer, that's a good sign that it's probably a wrong answer! The right answer will be correct without your help! So the fact that you found yourself making excuses for why answer C could be correct should have been a sign that you should have rejected it. Watch out for that!