Q20

[norginz]

Hi,

Can you also explain why the answer to question 20 is A and not D? Thanks.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question.

In the final paragraph, the author brings up a particular criticism made by CLS proponents, and then details Meyerson's rebuttal to that criticism, even going into a counterargument and Meyerson's response to that. So (A) is correct: a criticism is identified and its plausibility is investigated (in depth).

(D) is incorrect because the debate in this paragraph is purely theoretical; it never goes into practical consequences.

(B) is incorrect because we don't have two opponents of one viewpoint; we have two opposing viewpoints.

(C) is incorrect because no new position is offered to reconcile the two differing ones.

(E) is incorrect because there are no solutions, no imagining, and no summarization of a controversy.

Does that answer your question?

[norginz]

Yes I understand. Thanks.

I have some other questions. This passage was pretty tough in my opinion and I spent alot of time on it, a luxury that I will not have on the real thing. Do you have any tips on identifying and understanding whats important and what I can glaze over in a passage? You have about 8-9 minutes to read a passage and then answer ~6-7 questions (some of the answer choices are lengthy too). If you think about it, that isn't much time at all. It's like you're reading straight thru and understanding everything you come across w/out even pausing to think. There has to be some method or I must be doing something wrong. How can I become faster at this? Any advice would be helpful. Thanks.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question! Unfortunately, there is no short answer. What you've touched on is the fact that you need to develop a specific strategy if you're going to move quickly and successfully through the Reading Comp section. The bedrock of this strategy is reading for what we call the "scale," by which we mean the fundamental debate underlying nearly every LSAT passage.

If you're interested in enhancing your pace and success rate on Reading Comp, you should consider taking our course, which devotes over seven hours to the section, or at least checking out our strategy guide.

[norginz]

Thanks. I look into the study guide.

[nflamel69]

How is the word plausibility correct? I didn't think Meyerson was saying how plausible the criticism was...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

How is the word plausibility correct? I didn't think Meyerson was saying how plausible the criticism was...

Meyerson says in the final paragraph that the CLS criticism of legal formalism regarding the requirement of objectivism is implausible. So Meyerson identifies the criticism from the CLS movement investigates its plausibility - concluding that it is not plausible.

Hope that helps!

[hippo3717]

Matt,

I have a question in regards to C.
I was between A and C.

Now, I thought the final paragraph was structured in the following manner:

1. How CLS is against Legal formalism and M's criticism of CLS
2. CLS rebuttal to M's argument.
3. Then M qualifies the whole thing by replying to criticism.

By the way, what would be considered as "new information" or "new position?"

[asafezrati]

Matt,

I have a question in regards to C.
I was between A and C.

Now, I thought the final paragraph was structured in the following manner:

1. How CLS is against Legal formalism and M's criticism of CLS
2. CLS rebuttal to M's argument.
3. Then M qualifies the whole thing by replying to criticism.

Answer choice C is basically correct in saying that the paragraph presents arguments for and against a position, but there is no new position that is offered to reconcile the two sides. What actually happens is that one sides kicks the s**t out of the other.

Meyerson doesn't qualify her view, but gives an answer to a possible objection (by CLS) to her position.
In short - she keeps her position and adds nothing more.

By the way, what would be considered as "new information" or "new position?"

A nice new-reconciled-position could have been given by the author or a legal scholar, showing somehow that both points of view could actually be true in reality. Perhaps it's a matter of continental vs. common law?
Nothing like this happens.

[uhdang]

Thanks for your question.
(B) is incorrect because we don't have two opponents of one viewpoint; we have two opposing viewpoints.

Hi,
I was struggling between A) and B) and went for B.
I thought, although A) does describe the organization of the argument, it's a bit too general, leaving those "refuting idea parts" to a mere plausibility. But, I understand how it does correctly represent the organization.

The reason I went for B is because this more specifically approaches those opposing sides (Meyers vs. CLS). I thought they were different arguments by two opponents (Meyers and CLS) of a certain view point (matter of legal formalism requiring objectivism).

Could anybody clear this out please?

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're reading (B) as "two different interpretations of a certain topic".

But "two opponents of a certain viewpoint" would have to sound something like this:

Viewpoint: "I think Lebron James is the best basketball player ever."

Opponent 1: "What?! Obviously, Michael Jordan is the best ever. MJ went 6 for 6 in NBA title games. Lebron is a measly 2 for 5."

Opponent 2: "What?! Wilt Chamberlain is the best ever. He once averaged about 50 pts a game over an entire season. Lebron's best is 30 pts / game."

===========

The way you broke it down was

Viewpoint: Legal formalism requires objectivity.

Opponent 1 (Meyers): No it doesn't, because of that tasty 4th paragraph.

Opponent 2 (CLS): I'm sorry, what? Did you label us an OPPONENT of this view? We support this viewpoint!

=========

In terms of the vagueness of "its plausibility is investigated", I feel ya.

It's meant to be unappealing, but Meyerson investigated the plausibility and found very little.

You will similarly see in other passages in which an author has a very strong opinion that LSAT may hide reference to that by saying that the author "EVALUATED the merits of ______".

[uhdang]

I see.. So, B) is claiming that there are THREE viewpoints (one viewpoints and two opposing viewpoints) whereas there are two view points that oppose each other in the final paragraph, which I misunderstood this answer choice to be referring to.
Crystal clear, now. Thanks, Patrick as always!

P.S. And I love your Lebron, Michael, and Wilt analogy, and my personal choice is MJ

[JorieB701]

How is the word plausibility correct? I didn't think Meyerson was saying how plausible the criticism was...

Meyerson says in the final paragraph that the CLS criticism of legal formalism regarding the requirement of objectivism is implausible. So Meyerson identifies the criticism from the CLS movement investigates its plausibility - concluding that it is not plausible.

Hope that helps!

I still don't see the plausibility aspect in this paragraph. It says Meyerson "takes issue with the charge," but I don't see plausibility being questioned. What am I missing?

[ohthatpatrick]

What does it mean to call a criticism plausible or implausible?
It essentially means you're calling the criticism valid or invalid, although maybe a softer version of those words.

But it certainly means that you're evaluating how believable a certain criticism is.

Isn't that was Meyerson is doing? She's raising a criticism made by CLS and evaluating how valid / believable she finds that criticism.