Passage Discussion

[LSAT-Chang]

Did anyone come up with a scale for this passage? I had the following:

Side A -- multicultural education is a good strategy for achieving multicultural understanding (many educators in Canada and US)

Side B -- multicultural education advanced by these educators are not a good strategy for achieving multicultural understanding (critics, possibly the author???)

I was a little confused since there are technically 3 sides to this argument since there are two versions of multicultural education being advocated for and the critic going against both of these. Any thoughts on what the scale might look like? I also thought the author was kind of neutral on this perspective, just bringing out arguments from critics and educators. What does everyone else think?

[timmydoeslsat]

This is why Manhattan emphasizes flexibility! And this is something that you appear to have picked up on!

I thought the most efficient way of scaling this passage when I read it was to create two scales for the arguments.

Version of multicultural education that teaches from perspective of majority culture

Objection----

Critics state that teaching from a majority culture's perspective will make it impossible to have genuine understanding



Version of multicultural education that teaches it from a neutral perspective as it pertains to value differences
- Has methods, exams, explanation of cultures is still Western derived.

Objection----

Critics state that the methods, exams, etc are essentially value specific already.
-The very fact that those variables are as they are entail values in of itself. It is a Western perspective of science, not the mystical and not myth or religion.

[maryadkins]

The two scales can work here--I'm on board.

[LSAT-Chang]

I love Timmy's scale! Where would the author stand though? Was I correct in that the author seems to be just bringing out facts, and stays "neutral" or "indifferent"? How I figured this out was in the last paragraph, the author brings out the critics argument using a colon, so I thought everything else that comes after that was what the critics were saying, and not something that the author was saying. I was a little confused at first because I thought the sentences toward the last paragraph such as "to insist on trying to understand nonscientific cultures by the methods of Western science is not only DISTORTING..." was spoken by the author, but then I thought it actually might be the critics. Any thoughts?

[timmydoeslsat]

Was I correct in that the author seems to be just bringing out facts, and stays "neutral" or "indifferent"? How I figured this out was in the last paragraph, the author brings out the critics argument using a colon, so I thought everything else that comes after that was what the critics were saying, and not something that the author was saying. I was a little confused at first because I thought the sentences toward the last paragraph such as "to insist on trying to understand nonscientific cultures by the methods of Western science is not only DISTORTING..." was spoken by the author, but then I thought it actually might be the critics. Any thoughts?

The author is neutral in the passage. The author presents two proposals, each followed by critics objecting to it.

The last paragraph is the argument of critics towards this second version of multicultural education. The part about insisting and so forth is from the critics.

Where the author would invoke his or her opinion would be clear. The author would say something like, "The critics rightly note that to insist...."

No point of view from the author in this.

[keonheecho]

Hi,
Is the author really being neutral here?

In paragraph 3, the author seems to say "however, the methods of examination are still identifiably Western" (lines 32-34)

Doesn't this suggest that the author is at least kind of supporting the arguments of the critics in the final paragraph?
Thank you

[maryadkins]

Hmm, no...it is just saying they're Western, which is a fact that is not disputed in the passage. To note this isn't to endorse the view discussed in the final paragraph of the problems that arise due to this fact.