I'm confused with the second paragraph.
So it seems it is about the first flaw, but in the end of the paragraph it says "But" and it sounds like the author is supporting or speak for Garcia...there IS diverse.
I thought the author will point out a flaw, not defend what Garcia says...
What does this last sentence mean?
In this paragraph, it points out the flaw of Garcia's argument "radical and diverse" right?
(He argues it's not radical and diverse but in the first para, he says it was more radical and political diverse, so his argument contradicts each other.)
I'm so confused with this second paragraph...
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ganbayou
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 213
- Joined: June 13th, 2015
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3807
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Passage Discussion
Scale
There is a scale present in Garcia's book:
"The Mexican American Generation was more radical and more politically diverse than earlier historians have thought".
But the author's main point is not quite on this scale. Rather, the author is just saying that Garcia's study has two flaws.
Author's VP/Purpose
To Critique a Study/Book
Important Lines (usually Author's view)
Line 7 - "G does provide persuasive evidence"
Line 10 - "his study, however, suffers from two flaws"
Paragraph 1
1st flaw - (instead of making the point about polictial diversity he was SUPPOSED to be making, Garcia undermines this thesis by overemphasizing the political consensus of Mexican Americans)
Paragraph 2
2nd flaw - (Garcia seems to think that the radical nature of the political LEADERS also represents the radical nature of regular Mexican Americans, but the author isn't buying that)
Takeaway/Pattern: A real easy structure to diagnose. The thesis is in the most common place: the last sentence of the 1st paragraph. And the thesis is attached to the classic "but/yet/however/recently" pivot. The body paragraphs are instantly recognizable because of the "first" and "second", telegraphing that the author will unpack each of the two flaws one at a time. The hardest part of the passage is understanding what those flaws ARE! In particular, the first flaw is a weird one. The author seems to AGREE with Garcia's thesis that the Mexican American political groups were very politically diverse. She's only upset with Garcia because he does a poor job of establishing that idea. She thinks that he undermines the "politically diverse" thesis by continually emphasizing how much political consensus there was.
#officialexplanation
There is a scale present in Garcia's book:
"The Mexican American Generation was more radical and more politically diverse than earlier historians have thought".
But the author's main point is not quite on this scale. Rather, the author is just saying that Garcia's study has two flaws.
Author's VP/Purpose
To Critique a Study/Book
Important Lines (usually Author's view)
Line 7 - "G does provide persuasive evidence"
Line 10 - "his study, however, suffers from two flaws"
Paragraph 1
1st flaw - (instead of making the point about polictial diversity he was SUPPOSED to be making, Garcia undermines this thesis by overemphasizing the political consensus of Mexican Americans)
Paragraph 2
2nd flaw - (Garcia seems to think that the radical nature of the political LEADERS also represents the radical nature of regular Mexican Americans, but the author isn't buying that)
Takeaway/Pattern: A real easy structure to diagnose. The thesis is in the most common place: the last sentence of the 1st paragraph. And the thesis is attached to the classic "but/yet/however/recently" pivot. The body paragraphs are instantly recognizable because of the "first" and "second", telegraphing that the author will unpack each of the two flaws one at a time. The hardest part of the passage is understanding what those flaws ARE! In particular, the first flaw is a weird one. The author seems to AGREE with Garcia's thesis that the Mexican American political groups were very politically diverse. She's only upset with Garcia because he does a poor job of establishing that idea. She thinks that he undermines the "politically diverse" thesis by continually emphasizing how much political consensus there was.
#officialexplanation
2 posts Page 1 of 1