Q2

[LSAT-Chang]

Could someone help me understand why (D) is correct?
Where do we get the idea that mexican american literature is noteworthy more for its thematic content than for its narrative structure?
All I found in reference that really relates to this idea of thematic content and narrative structure was line 17~22 "their novels are oven simple in structure, and some of the common themes in these novels...". But how can we infer from this idea that their literature is noteworthy MORE for its thematic content than narrative structure? I don't think there is any implied comparison going on here. I think what it really comes down to is, I don't know how MUCH I should infer.

[timmydoeslsat]

For an inference question like this, it is important to remember that we are talking about not a straight up inference question like you would see in logical reasoning.

This is basically asking us, "Which one of these answer choices would the author agree with?"

The most powerful tool on reading comprehension questions, in my opinion, is the ability to get rid of wrong answers.

Answer choices:

A) Absolutely not supported in any way. Nothing about creating a US literary establishment. Eliminate.

B) Evidence of a brief transitional period? This is not supported in any way. Eliminate.

C) Nothing whatsoever in this passage indicates that the Mexican establishment is offended in ANY way by the Mexican American works. Eliminate.

D) The author comments on this in the passage.

Line 17 (about Mexican American works) Their novels are often simple in structure.

Lines 39-42: But the apparent simplicity of
what this community (Mexican literary community) sees as parochial (narrow) concerns
belies (misleads) the thematic richness of Mexican American
writing.

So the author is telling us straight up that the narrative structure of Mexican American works is simple. While the author talks about how the thematic richness of these works can be misled by its narrow focus. The author is not writing this passage because of how simple the structure of the works are. The author is writing it to show how complex the thematic content can be, yet the Mexican literary establishment ignores what makes it so complex!

E) No evidence of whatsoever that Mexico is central to the Mexican American culture. No evidence whatsoever about anything the results of anything being diminished.

[LSAT-Chang]

D) The author comments on this in the passage.

Line 17 (about Mexican American works) Their novels are often simple in structure.

Lines 39-42: But the apparent simplicity of
what this community (Mexican literary community) sees as parochial (narrow) concerns
belies (misleads) the thematic richness of Mexican American
writing.

So the author is telling us straight up that the narrative structure of Mexican American works is simple. While the author talks about how the thematic richness of these works can be misled by its narrow focus. The author is not writing this passage because of how simple the structure of the works are. The author is writing it to show how complex the thematic content can be, yet the Mexican literary establishment ignores what makes it so complex!

I think I see how these inference questions works on reading comp... thanks a lot!! I guess I'm just a bigger fan of logical reasoning type inference questions -- which makes me look for EXACT or even very similar matches in reading comp as well..

[timmydoeslsat]

You will really benefit of how to be flexible. That is what Manhattan is all about.

Do not fight the current in the water. Swim with it. Reading comp inference questions, especially on something about what the author would agree upon, is not going to be like LR.

However, questions like strengthen or weaken on reading comp is IDENTICAL to LR.

When I think of strengthen and weaken on reading comp, I am thinking about a situation dealing with cause and effect. Like to weaken the proposed cause and effect, I would show the cause without the effect, the effect without the cause, or show something else causing the effect.

[kjsmit02]

D) The author comments on this in the passage.

[i]Line 17 (about Mexican American works) Their novels are often simple in structure.

Lines 39-42: But the apparent simplicity of
what this community (Mexican literary community) sees as parochial (narrow) concerns
belies (misleads) the thematic richness of Mexican American
writing.

So the author is telling us straight up that the narrative structure of Mexican American works is simple. While the author talks about how the thematic richness of these works can be misled by its narrow focus. The author is not writing this passage because of how simple the structure of the works are. The author is writing it to show how complex the thematic content can be, yet the Mexican literary establishment ignores what makes it so complex!
[/quote]
[/i]

Quite confused here. I understand why the others are wrong now. But while we know Mexican American Lit. has thematic richness, how does that lead us to throw out the importance of it's narrative structure (narrative structure that's unknown to exist). Only because we know whatever structure MA lit uses is simple? Can't this simple structure still have importance in driving the thematic richness (then again, I guess this could be why it's correct?)

[sh854]

I have the same q as the person above and that is why I am having trouble picking D. Can someone please help?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, kjsmit02 and sh854!

First, it's important to remember that getting a question wrong on the LSAT requires two separate bad acts: 1) rejecting a correct answer and 2) accepting an incorrect answer. While it's critical to understand during after-the-fact analysis what makes the right answer tick, in the heat of the moment on test day, the fact that all four of the other answer choices are completely and totally unsupportable would leave me no choice but to select (D), even if I felt iffy about it!

But let's dig into the information we actually have from the passage on themes and narrative structure. It's worth pointing out that the author spends a looooooong time talking about the themes, concerns, and content of Mexican American literature, and only notes the simple narrative structure in passing. On a lazy read, that might just be enough for me to sign on for (D).

But let's think a bit more about what the author actually says about both.

On themes/concerns/content:

MA lit distinguishes itself "in its content and concerns" (line 11-12)
"some of the common themes ... include...." (line 18)
the "themes coexist with ..." (line 23)
"....the thematic richness..." (line 41)
"...complex mixture of concerns" (line 44)
"...the work is distinguished by an overarching concern with..." (lines 45-6)

Wow, that's a lot of talking about themes/concerns/content! There are a few different notes about how MA lit "is distinguished by" these themes and concerns. Very noteworthy!

Here's the sum total of the quotes about narrative structure:

"Their novels are often simple in structure".

There's nothing that seems particularly noteworthy about that at all. The author not only seems not to care much about the narrative structure from the fact that he spends so little time on it, but also because the word "simple" can have the connotation of 'uninteresting' or 'mundane'.

Does the word "simple" always have to mean 'not noteworthy'? No, but it's not an unreasonable connotation for the word. Since that connotation is not patently unreasonable, even if I might not use the word that way, I can accept the idea that maybe, just maybe, the author is using it that way.

Remember, words can have a variety of meanings in various contexts. We should only eliminate something if there's no reasonable way to justify the connection, or if we have to torture the language to make it fit.

Does this help clear up a few things?

[sh854]

Yes! Thank you for your help christine. Will remember the bad acts advice for the LSAT tomorrow.

Thanks for posting, kjsmit02 and sh854!

First, it's important to remember that getting a question wrong on the LSAT requires two separate bad acts: 1) rejecting a correct answer and 2) accepting an incorrect answer. While it's critical to understand during after-the-fact analysis what makes the right answer tick, in the heat of the moment on test day, the fact that all four of the other answer choices are completely and totally unsupportable would leave me no choice but to select (D), even if I felt iffy about it!

But let's dig into the information we actually have from the passage on themes and narrative structure. It's worth pointing out that the author spends a looooooong time talking about the themes, concerns, and content of Mexican American literature, and only notes the simple narrative structure in passing. On a lazy read, that might just be enough for me to sign on for (D).

But let's think a bit more about what the author actually says about both.

On themes/concerns/content:

MA lit distinguishes itself "in its content and concerns" (line 11-12)
"some of the common themes ... include...." (line 18)
the "themes coexist with ..." (line 23)
"....the thematic richness..." (line 41)
"...complex mixture of concerns" (line 44)
"...the work is distinguished by an overarching concern with..." (lines 45-6)

Wow, that's a lot of talking about themes/concerns/content! There are a few different notes about how MA lit "is distinguished by" these themes and concerns. Very noteworthy!

Here's the sum total of the quotes about narrative structure:

"Their novels are often simple in structure".

There's nothing that seems particularly noteworthy about that at all. The author not only seems not to care much about the narrative structure from the fact that he spends so little time on it, but also because the word "simple" can have the connotation of 'uninteresting' or 'mundane'.

Does the word "simple" always have to mean 'not noteworthy'? No, but it's not an unreasonable connotation for the word. Since that connotation is not patently unreasonable, even if I might not use the word that way, I can accept the idea that maybe, just maybe, the author is using it that way.

Remember, words can have a variety of meanings in various contexts. We should only eliminate something if there's no reasonable way to justify the connection, or if we have to torture the language to make it fit.

Does this help clear up a few things?

[LeonC641]

Hi Manhattan Prep,

I need advice in terms of execution, i.e., attacking the question in a real test.

Since the "narrative structure" can merely be supported by Line 17 "simple in structure", either someone has a strong short-term memo or happens to catch the line, otherwise, this question would be extremely time-consuming. This was my case when doing this PT. I often heard from some test takers suggested POE, but this approach can't work that well here because of the red flag indicator "more than".

Then, how would you suggest your students attack this type of question, assuming that your students don't have a superman memory and only have 1 min for each question?

Thanks a lot.