LSAT Forum
5 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- LSAT-Chang
-
Thanks Received: 38
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 479
- Joined: June 03rd, 2011
- Most Thankful
- First Responder
Re: Q18
I also had a question about this one. What is the difference between A and D exactly?
-
- ivankrasnov88
-
Thanks Received: 2
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 13
- Joined: November 10th, 2011
Re: Q18
I'm not speaking on behalf of the experts, but it seems to me that the 'traditional history' is either "strictly narrative or narrative with an emphasis on causality" (41-42).
Definition of narrative: A spoken or written account of connected events; a story: "a bare narrative of the details".
Answer choice D is neither a narrative nor seems to be directly explaining any causality, as required by the definition in lines 41-42.
All the other answer choices except A also present a situation that is not a narrative.
On a personal note:
I'm not sure if anyone else had this trouble, but I was mistakenly thinking that lines 41-42 were actually referring to Harraway's approach, but then quickly contrasted it with the fact that in line 36 the author states that she has no master narrative.
Definition of narrative: A spoken or written account of connected events; a story: "a bare narrative of the details".
Answer choice D is neither a narrative nor seems to be directly explaining any causality, as required by the definition in lines 41-42.
All the other answer choices except A also present a situation that is not a narrative.
On a personal note:
I'm not sure if anyone else had this trouble, but I was mistakenly thinking that lines 41-42 were actually referring to Harraway's approach, but then quickly contrasted it with the fact that in line 36 the author states that she has no master narrative.
-
- giladedelman
-
Thanks Received: 833
- LSAT Geek
- Posts: 619
- Joined: April 04th, 2010
- This post thanked 4 times.
Re: Q18
Yes, that's right: the "traditional" approach is one that emphasizes narrative or narrative + causality. In other words, old-fashioned storytelling: A happened, then B happened, then C, which caused D, and finally E.
Answer (A) fits the bill here because it is a chronological account, so we have the narrative part, and it pays attention to the circumstances that led to Curie's discovery, so it also emphasizes causal argument.
(B) is out because it's not history at all, it's just speculation about the future.
(C) is just a transcript of conversations, and there's no resolution or conclusion. So there is nothing "narrative" about this, there's no story or sequence.
(D) is out because, again, no narrative.
(E) ditto.
The key to this type of question is to identify what we know has to be in the answer before we get to the choices. In this case, we know the answer has to say something about emphasizing a narrative-based approach because that's the only thing the passage tells us about the traditional approach to history.
Answer (A) fits the bill here because it is a chronological account, so we have the narrative part, and it pays attention to the circumstances that led to Curie's discovery, so it also emphasizes causal argument.
(B) is out because it's not history at all, it's just speculation about the future.
(C) is just a transcript of conversations, and there's no resolution or conclusion. So there is nothing "narrative" about this, there's no story or sequence.
(D) is out because, again, no narrative.
(E) ditto.
The key to this type of question is to identify what we know has to be in the answer before we get to the choices. In this case, we know the answer has to say something about emphasizing a narrative-based approach because that's the only thing the passage tells us about the traditional approach to history.
5 posts Page 1 of 1