LSAT PrepTest 43 Section 1 Question 13 Explanation | Reading Comprehension

I didn't write the following blog post. It was already on the blog when I took over the URL. The following blog post may contain mistakes. -Steve

***


Here's a Reading Comprehension question from the June 2004 LSAT.

Let's recall the paragraph summaries we wrote when we first did this passage:

P 1: Situational/rhetorical factors explain most code-switching

P 2: Where, what, and who is in the conversation affects it

P 3: Sometimes code-switching done just for rhetoric's sake

Looking at the third paragraph's summary, we see that the author interprets the study involving the family as showing that some code-switching is done for rhetorical reasons, because they say Spanish was used sparingly for emphasis, etc. So, we can make a pre-phrase of what kind of thing would cast doubt on the author's interpretation of that study (obviously we can't pre-phrase an actual answer, since many things could cast doubt on it); since he interpreted it as evidence of rhetorical code-switching, evidence that the code-switching was done for non-rhetorical reasons would weaken his interpretation. Now, let's go through the choices:

A) Correct. If for a whole year the family didn't code-switch except when the situation changed a lot, then situational factors are probably the reason for the code-switching, not rhetoric. The author interpreted the study to mean that their code-switching was done for rhetorical effect, and this choice weakens that view, so it's right.

B) This is the opposite of what we want because it strengthens the author's view. If situational factors didn't cause a change for a whole year, situational factors are probably not a good explanation and rhetoric may be the reason for the code-switching, which is what the author thinks.

C) Out of scope and thus incorrect. The author doesn't interpret the study as saying that intimacy/humor are only expressed in Spanish, just that Spanish is sometimes used to express them. So, if those feelings are occasionally expressed in English, that does nothing to weaken his interpretation. The interpretation makes no claim about a language always being used to express intimacy/humor, so this choice doesn't really address the interpretation directly and is out of scope.

D) Totally out of scope. The author's interpretation was that Spanish was used for intimacy/humor...neither feeling applies to an explanation of their language use to a researcher. So, the author's interpretation isn't weakened because this choice doesn't address it.

E) Out of scope. Maybe they weren't asked about it or had never thought about it. This choice doesn't provide a reason to think what they're saying now is untrue or inaccurate, so it doesn't directly address the interpretation of the author and doesn't weaken it.

Remember:

1) Use the summaries, especially on questions about a single paragraph or the passage as a whole. They can help a lot.

2) Use a pre-phrase of the general sort of idea you're looking for, even if it isn't possible to pre-phrase an actual answer (since there are many possibly correct ones, as was the case here).

3) Eliminate choices that are out of scope (in this case, if they didn't directly bear on the argument, they obviously couldn't cast doubt on it) or are the opposite of what we're looking for (in this case, choices that strengthen the argument instead of casting doubt on it).