#19 - Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[reop6780]

The correct answer for Q19 is E.

The general struggle I have is the usage of "international law" in answer E.

As "both authors" considered such matter, it is implied that Passage B has something to do with "international law" as well.

I just could not figure out where passage B is inferred to describe "international law."

Other than that, answer E sounds alright since both passages brought the case of Roma.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hey reop6780,

Thanks for your question.

Just like in the other question you posted (the one about tadpoles), I notice you have a tendency to rely on keywords in identifying new information. This is not a foolproof method, as you can see. Here, you were put off by the phrase "international law" as it applies to Passage B. While the author does not overtly mention international law anywhere in the passage, you should be able to infer it contextually. After all, the entire discussion of Capotorti's definition of a minority group concerns its application to international law: what criteria a group must meet in order to be considered a minority in all states.

Once you understand that, it is clear that answer choice (E) describes the relationship between the two passages correctly. Both passages portray the Roma as a nomadic population with distinctive ethnic and linguistic characteristics. To the author of passage B, these characteristics exempt the Roma from having to meet the legal criterion of citizenship. This issue can reasonably be described as “anomalous and special.” Similarly, the author of passage A considers the lack of a completely satisfactory definition of “minority” in international law to be a greater problem for the Roma than for other minorities, an issue that can also be described as “anomalous and special.”

Hope this helps! Let me know.

[lhd33]

Hi,

I was wondering how E is the right answer for this question. While I do see how the author of passage A clearly considers the problems the Roma face to be anomalous and special, I don't see how we can be sure the author of passage B also feels the same way just because he or she uses the Roma as an example in his or her passage.

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

That's a good question. As you mention, the first author makes a very clear point that the situation faced by the Roma is anomalous and special, and the second author does so as well, although perhaps somewhat less clearly. In the second passage, the author presents the criteria required to meet the definition of "minority." The "problematic" element, says the author, is the requirement that they be citizens of the state in question. This creates something of a unique issue for the Roma, considering their nomadic past and the fact that they continue to cross borders regularly (in the interest of avoiding persecution). The Roma meet the criteria, says the author, yet they can be denied citizenship and thus minority status, which the author describes as "patently unfair." This is the unique and special situation to which that answer choice alludes--the Roma meet all of the criteria for minority status, yet the state has the arbitrary right to decide whether or not to grant them said status.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[cecilia]

Hi Nikki and thanks for this response. It was very helpful. While not the original poster, I had a very similar response to (E), only my problem was with the words "anomalous and special." I guess many of us are so conditioned to find textual support for answer choices that when we see a word or phrase that is not directly mentioned in the passage, we automatically rule it out as being unsupported/out of scope/failing the fact test,etc. (On this question alone, this approach seemed to work for at least two incorrect answer choices, so i can't be that off base, can I??). I guess the larger issue for me is when to walk the line of inferring something contextually ( as you advised the previous poster) vs. making an unwarranted leap. I just got done with the 2016 edition of the RC book and am thinking, maybe the issue is that I did not attack this question with the specific category in mind (concept vs. global reference etc). Would #19 be considered a Global Reference question and hence I should allow for more flexibility when assessing whether a given answer choice passes the fact test?

Last question, as relates to author's perspective q's : Are they somewhat similar to Main point questions in that oftentimes, they're not gonna appear in one nice little neat spot or even be directly or succinctly stated? Powerscore's RC book mentioned this to be the case for Main Point q's, so I was wondering if there is any overlap with questions about author perspective (such as #19).

Thanks and sorry for the length here.

[Jonathan Evans]

Good questions Cecilia. Let me address them in turn:

First,

Inference from context is an essential part of all "Must Be True" questions whether on Reading Comp or Logical Reasoning. Finding analogous ways to express or combine information accurately is the name of the game on the LSAT. Direct textual evidence does not imply direct quotes.

In this particular instance, in passage B, the Roma are singled out as a "problematic" case (i.e. "singled out as problematic" "anomalous and special") of defining minorities with respect to their legal rights and status in multiple nations (i.e. "international law"). You're not making an unwarranted leap. You're making a warranted inference.

Second,

It is a Global Reference question.

Third,

Yes, author's perspective questions are similar to main point questions. You apply the main point (author's point of view) to a particular situation or part of the text. Use your understanding of the main point to eliminate incorrect answer choices that disagree with the author's perspective.

[cecilia]

Hi Jonathan or Nikki... Just to clarify then: I understand why (E) is correct. I just want to make sure that I got the conceptual approach correct.

Jonathan said: "Inference from context is an essential part of all "Must Be True" questions whether on Reading Comp or Logical Reasoning. Finding analogous ways to express or combine information accurately is the name of the game on the LSAT. Direct textual evidence does not imply direct quotes."

I had initially asked:
So one could say that if it is a Global Reference question, one should allow for more flexibility when assessing whether a given answer choice passes the fact test? Would this be an appropriate approach???

To add on to what Nikki said, would it be correct to say that just as the author didn't overtly mention international law, he also didn't overly mention "anomalous" and 'special"...But because we are being asked for what can most accurately describe the author's view, given that this is a Global Reference q, one should allow for more flexibility when assessing whether a given answer choice passes the "fact test". Would that be correct??

Thanks.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Cecilia,

I think you're close. The real key, though, is not that you want to be a bit loose with the fact test on these questions; rather, you want to make sure you are never applying the fact test mechanistically, looking only for the exact same language. Rather, you're looking to see that the answer can be proven by the stimulus, regardless of whether they use the same words or different words; this is more about the same concept or idea. That will be true every time you apply the fact test, and really got most things on the LSAT; you don't want to mechanistically apply a rule, but rather apply it using critical thinking, making sure it makes sense.

[cecilia]

Thanks Emily! That really cleared it up for me. Thanks so much.

[HarryK]

Hi,

I came up with two possible reasons for crossing out answer choice (B); but I am not sure which line of thought would be correct.

(1) Both authors think that International Law is problematic in the Roma case. But that does not mean that they think IL is ineffective. We use the word 'Ineffective' to say: we intend to make some effect/ reach some goal, but it doesn't work. At least in passage (B), there is no ground upon which to claim that IL is ineffective (it sought to do something, but it didn't work out). Rather, the author is only worried about IL being effective in this case (IL letting each state decide the status of the Roma). The author says that the legal criterion is unfair, which can mean the same as 'problematic', but probably not as 'ineffective'.

(2) If I assume that 'ineffective' and 'problematic' mean the same, then both authors would think that IL is ineffective, not just the author of passage (B).

Please let me know,
Harry