Passage Discussion

[rishisb]

Hello, Atlas:

I have a question about the first paragraph of this passage (PT 42, Sec. 3, Passage 1) . The first paragraph puzzled me.

I did not see the connection between the first and second sentences of the passage. Let me explain. In the 1st sentence, the author defines pop-art as being the movement that "incorporated commonplace objects and commercial-art techniques into paintings." But, then, in the very next line he writes that Lichtenstein's "merger of [/i] a popular art genre [/i]with the form and intentions of fine art . . . . . " made his work have a complex result.

Huh?

The author’s definition of pop-art _ as occurs in the first sentence _ nowhere says that pop-part was blending of a "a popular art genre" with "fine art." To begin with, the first sentence only talks about commercial-art, and it’s not obvious at all that commercial-art is "fine art." There’s a leap of reasoning here. Second, the first sentence doesn’t tell us that any "popular genre" undergoes a merger of sorts. The first sentence only says that pop-art "incorporated" common-place objects in its works. Such an "incorporation" _ by itself _ hardly seems to constitutes a "popular genre." Again, there appears to be a leap of reasoning.

I ask this b/c (a) these type of things have repeatedly thrown me off and (b) I am left wondering if I’ve failed to grasp some deep connection that the author tries to make between two things. My questions, now: What can I do to not get thrown off, and *how*/ *when* can I tell if the author is trying to make some deep connection in situations described above?


[btw: I think my concern about missing deep connections/inferences is what also motivated me to ask a question on your RC PT 53 (Sec IV) form.]

Things like this have been an endless source of frustration ! I would be very grateful for your insights.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

You're desire to see complex relationships is important on some parts of the LSAT, but not so much in defining the scale of the passage. You're working to see something that in all likelihood is not there. So, unless a question specifically forces you into a deeper understanding, try to avoid such complex relationships when reading in Reading Comp.

In this case the first two sentences are completely consistent. The passage states that Roy Lichtenstein "helped" define pop art - not that he was the stereotypical pop artist. If he blended pop art with fine art, then he could still help define pop art.

Maybe people could discern which elements of Lichtenstein's work were elements of fine art and which were pop art. Then his use of elements incorporating pop art could then become known as traditional pop art.

Does any of this make sense? I'm just trying to explain as I would think about it... Let me know!

[Shiggins]

I found this passage a little difficult. I tried making summary notes on side to help.
For the first paragraph I summed it as Roy Lichenstein was a pos influence on Pop Art.
For the Second paragraph, I mainly sensed the clarification the author makes about who Lichenstein was rebelling against ( the second generation of abstract art).
The final paragraph is where I sensed the author wanted to clarify that Lichenstein's work was not soley focused on parody but on line 36 "impulse toward realism. I still struggle with RC and am looking for a good way to tackle a passage like this. If there are any tips on notifying things. Also Q9 gave me trouble. If anyone can help, much appreciated.

[nehachawla]

Hello,
I had trouble with this passage and it's because I didn't have a clear understanding of the scale. Could you please post what the scale is for this passage?

Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]