Passage Discussion

[LSAT-Chang]

Here is the scale I came up with for this passage.. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated since I am struggling with finding the debate of some of the harder passages.

I didn't see a clear debate since the whole passage just seemed to explain about WHY African Americans grew rice. The only "two sides" I saw throughout the passage was in the first paragraph..

Side A -- Africans contributed little of value but labor to U.S. (Historians)

Side B -- Africans contributed much more than just labor (i.e. rice) (Vernon, possibly author)

Any thoughts??

[demetri.blaisdell]

changsoyeon,

I think your scale doesn't quite sum up the passage. The point about historians is only in the very beginning of the passage, so I don't think it deserves to dictate the scale. I think the reasons for the cultivation are the central idea here. Here's my scale:

Side 1: African Americans cultivated rice to eat/sell it.
-Vernon, before emancipation
support - French request for Africans who knew rice

Side 2: African Americans cultivated rice as a political act.
-Vernon, after emancipation
support - Not profitable, US gov promised land

I know it's not ideal to have to put Vernon on both sides of the scale but the point here is the historical divide of before and after emancipation. The rice meant different things at different times. A quick run through of the questions shows that you need to keep the two theories straight but also know that the author likes Vernon which is pretty clear throughout the passage.

I'm not altogether satisfied with what I've got here but it helps make sense of the rest of the passage. Let me know what you think.

Demetri

[demetri.blaisdell]

One final thought: maybe we can cheat and combine your scale and mine. My scale would be sides B1 and B2 in your scale. Just a thought. Let me know what you think.

[LSAT-Chang]

This looks really good! I really feel like I'm not "actively" reading the passage which makes it hard to see what the central argument of the passage is. Thanks so much for all your feedback! I like your idea of combining yours to put it under my Side B

[chike_eze]

I wonder if sometimes searching specifically for two sides to RC passages actually diminishes one's ability to attack RC passages efficiently.

Especially if one feels that two sides should exist in all but a few RC passages.

The scale may be sufficient, but is it necessary?

Thoughts?

[LSAT-Chang]

Honestly, I think I became paranoid about this scale thing -- I started to force myself to actually USE it starting roughly 4 days ago, and I've noticed myself strangling to find the two sides when there really wasn't one! I just kept doubting myself since I suck at the RC, and so I'm automatically thinking "come on, I KNOW there's gotta be a debate. Where is it!!" and so I'm wasting time doing that for the next few minutes, and then when I'm on to the questions, I feel less confident answering them since I feel like I'm missing the crucial argument. I just really need to learn how to be flexible -- I'm really good at following strict rules, but LSAT loves to twist things around, and I go "WHAT?!" at those! Do you use the scale? One of the biggest reasons I started to use it was because I never have in the past, and I've just kind of solved the RC just how I felt like solving it, and ended up getting -10 misses and all, so then I started to think "okay.. i definitely need to come up with an approach.." and really forced myself to mentally use the scale approach, since I'm definitely a passive reader!!

[chike_eze]

I am a "rules" guy too. Evidence: read all the conditional statement and necc/suff questions I've asked.

But as you pointed out, the LSAT, at least at the higher level, encourages flexibility and pattern recognition. To this end, I believe tools like the "scale" for RC, and the "logic chain" for LG binary grouping games are just tools. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we try to fit the LSAT questions exactly to the tools -- it should be the other way round.

To answer your question, I use the idea of the scale, but not always. For example, if the RC passage reads like a descriptive essay, I don't actively look for opposing sides. Sometimes I'll even go through the RC passage without clearly mapping out the sides, but I can still attack the questions with knowledge about the general structure, main point and gist of support.

Of course each person has his/her own style. However, the reason I posed the question above is because I think a test taker is more likely to do better if they don't approach RC questions with the mindset of "Gosh, I couldn't find the scale -- I must not understand the passage!" -- Well, maybe there was no scale (opposing sides) to begin with