Q23

[mrudula_2005]

Why is "unimpressed" the right answer choice here? What's wrong with exasperated? Is it too extreme? And what about forbearing? The author did seem to be annoyed but to contain it.

any insight would be much appreciated. thanks!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question.

Answer (C), "unimpressed," is correct. The author has a negative opinion of what he sees as the Modernists' "ignorance" and stubborn adherence to unrealistic ideals.

(A), "forbearing," doesn't make sense here. What is the author holding back or abstaining from? I don't see any evidence that lets us conclude that the author is annoyed, as you claim.

(B) is the opposite of what we want. The passage doesn't defend the Modernists, it criticizes them.

You're right about answer (D). "Exasperated" is way too strong here. The author doesn't think too highly of the Modernists, but there's no indication that he or she is fed up with or annoyed by them.

(E) is incorrect because the author is absolutely not "indifferent" to the Modernists; the whole passage is devoted to taking a position about them!

Does that clear this one up for you?

[mrudula_2005]

thanks a lot for your help - I can definitely see how C works, but for some reason I feel like the author is using keywords that denote annoyance

such as "the tenacious adherence of Modernist architects"(10), "...other aspects were conveniently ignored" (30), "To do this and still produce a visually acceptable interior called for an unrealistically high level of craftsmanship" (52), and "...hence the well-founded reputation of Modern architecture as prohibitively expensive" (57).

maybe I am relying too heavily on these choice words and maybe these words don't even indicate annoyance (and I just imposed that tone on my own)...

[swwestley]

This question seems more ambiguous than most found on the LSAT. I feel like reading understated academic writing hurt me on this one, as I was over-eager to read too much emotion into the author's put-downs.

Can you tell I got this one wrong?

When I get a question wrong, I try to find a rule I could use on future tests to avoid to avoid making the same mistake again. In this case, I came up with the following:

In an RC question based on a value-based characterization, the answer that is least falsifiable is a better choice than one which is more specific, and more debatable, even if the latter choice is potentially more apt.

Applying that logic this question, I feel reasonable people could disagree about whether the author is exasperated, but he is undeniably unimpressed.

Put another way, it would be much easier to argue that the author is not exasperated than it would be to argue that he is not unimpressed.

[zagreus77]

I hated choice c, but it was the only one that could possibly be right. The author was no fan of MM props, and it seemed stronger than unimpressed-- critical perhaps. But never seemed to reach exasperation. Sometimes you just have to choose the least bad choice.

[griffin.811]

I too went with A, because I got the sense the author was annoyed as well.

I knew overall the authors view of this group wasn't positive, so I eliminated B. Unimpressed and indifferent both seemed too dismissive, so I eliminated them. Finally D was much too strong, and I was left with A.