#9 - Must Be True, Author’s Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10828)

The correct answer choice is (C)

This question asks for the author’s perspective on how most ethnographic literature deals with women’s views on women. The author states that Shostak’s presentation of women’s views on women is a “salutary shock,” a startling contrast to the normal absence of such perspective.

Answer choice (A): The author believes that the book under discussion is an exception to the general rule, so this choice is not supported by the passage and cannot be the right answer to this Must—Author’s Perspective question.

Answer choice (B): This is not accurate; the author believes that Shostak’s book is exceptional in its presentation of this perspective.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The author believes that the presentation of women’s perspective on women provides a startling contrast to the standard lack of such perspective, implying that the normal lack of women’s views on women represents an unfortunate state of affairs.

Answer choice (D): The author does not mention finding it surprising that individual interviews are not used more, so this choice fails the Fact Test and should be ruled out of contention in response to this Must­—AP question.

Answer choice (E): The author is not disappointed by most ethnographic studies of women’s views on women; on the contrary, the author believes that most ethnographic studies omit that perspective entirely.

[moshei24]

Is the reason why it's (C) because salutary shock could be described as unfortunate, as well?

And (D) is wrong because there was no mention of interviews?

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Hi Moshe,

That's the right section of the passage to refer to; if it's shocking how much ethnographic literature omits the perspective of women about women, it's safe to say that the author finds this unfortunate.

As for D, that's right--there's nothing in the passage to support that.

~Steve

[moshei24]

Aha, makes sense. Thanks, Steve!

[Adam Tyson]

That passage was a real mouthful, wasn't it? A salutary shock is something beneficial, not unfortunate - the author is saying that it's a good thing to be shocked into this awareness, like getting a wake-up call or hearing a warning cry. The suggestion, then, is that it is unfortunate that we didn't notice before. That's why C is the best answer - the implication is that perhaps we should have noticed before and, now that we have noticed, maybe we can do something to improve the situation.

Right on about D - it's not about interviews, necessarily, but about getting that important women's perspective one way or another.

Adam

[moshei24]

This passage was pretty annoying, and I got distracted during it. I think I spent about a minute reading the first few lines. Not cool.

But (C) isn't talking about how it's unfortunate that we didn't notice it before; it's talking about how it's unfortunate in general that they didn't deal with women. Are those two things the same idea? Or, if it's unfortunate that we didn't notice about until now, it's implied that it's unfortunate that it wasn't mentioned in the past? The fact that it's good that we finally noticed it implies that it not being mentioned in the past was a bad thing? Because after noticing it, it was fixed, so if it was good that we noticed it, it must be good that we fixed, and unfortunate before we fixed it?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

In short, yes!

[Steve Stein]

This passage was pretty annoying, and I got distracted during it. I think I spent about a minute reading the first few lines. Not cool.

But (C) isn't talking about how it's unfortunate that we didn't notice it before; it's talking about how it's unfortunate in general that they didn't deal with women. Are those two things the same idea? Or, if it's unfortunate that we didn't notice about until now, it's implied that it's unfortunate that it wasn't mentioned in the past? The fact that it's good that we finally noticed it implies that it not being mentioned in the past was a bad thing? Because after noticing it, it was fixed, so if it was good that we noticed it, it must be good that we fixed, and unfortunate before we fixed it?

Thanks!

Again, keeping it simple: it's shocking to note such omission; the author considers that omission unfortunate.

I hope that's helpful!

~Steve

[moshei24]

Okay, this is getting way too confusing. You both have different reasons for the answer being what it is. Whatever. I think I'm just going to assume that I understand it enough, given my long-winded explanation.

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Hey Moshe,

This doesn't need to be confusing at all. It's a shock to realize the degree of omission in ethnographic literature--that omission is unfortunate.

Salutary simply refers to the fact that Nisa provides a refreshing contrast that highlights that unfortunate state of affairs.

I hope that's helpful--please let me know--thanks!

~Steve