Q20

[sissixz]

this kind of question, find analogous relationship, always befuddled me.

Like always, I cannot even eliminate some choices.

Really need your help, thanks!!!\
PS: I chose D.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

A good place to start is with the correct answer to Q16. If we know what the purpose of each passage is, we should see those purposes related in the titles of the pairs of documents introduced in the answer choices.

The correct answer to Q16 is (E). That means the purpose of the first passage was to discuss how the lack of clear cut definitions is negatively impacting groups that aren't currently protected in international law under the term "national minority."

Now we need to see what the second passage is all about. The first sentence of the second paragraph of Passage B is the clearest summary of the main point. Put simply, the Roma should be considered to satisfy the criteria of a "national minority."

So we need answer choice that discusses the loose terms in the definition of what it means to be something and then an argument that a specific group meets the definition - best expressed in answer choice (A).

(B) has Passage B way too broad. It should be about a principle and then the application of the principle to specific set. Answer choice (B) has Passage B continuing to discuss the principle in general.
(C) would make Passage A more about a comparison between one group and others, rather than the problems associated with the current definitions contained within a principle.
(D) has Passage B more about the principle. It should be more about how a current set applies to that principle.
(E) would have Passage arguing the exact opposite that the Roma should not be protected under the term "national minority" in international law.

Does that answer your question on this one?

[sissixz]

It does! Thank you!!!

Really appreciate your help!!!

[farhadshekib]

A good place to start is with the correct answer to Q16. If we know what the purpose of each passage is, we should see those purposes related in the titles of the pairs of documents introduced in the answer choices.

The correct answer to Q16 is (E). That means the purpose of the first passage was to discuss how the lack of clear cut definitions is negatively impacting groups that aren't currently protected in international law under the term "national minority."

Now we need to see what the second passage is all about. The first sentence of the second paragraph of Passage B is the clearest summary of the main point. Put simply, the Roma should be considered to satisfy the criteria of a "national minority."

So we need answer choice that discusses the loose terms in the definition of what it means to be something and then an argument that a specific group meets the definition - best expressed in answer choice (A).

(B) has Passage B way too broad. It should be about a principle and then the application of the principle to specific set. Answer choice (B) has Passage B continuing to discuss the principle in general.
(C) would make Passage A more about a comparison between one group and others, rather than the problems associated with the current definitions contained within a principle.
(D) has Passage B more about the principle. It should be more about how a current set applies to that principle.
(E) would have Passage arguing the exact opposite that the Roma should not be protected under the term "national minority" in international law.

Does that answer your question on this one?

I'm convinced: you are a genius.

[denis468]

Hello,

I thought this post is dedicated to Q20 and not Q 16... Anyways, choice A is good because it reflects the structure of argument about Gypsies in Passage A and Passage B.

[marshal_of_grey]

The problem I had with choice A is that it says passage B is an argument why something "fulfills" a set of criteria. B explicitly says the Roma do not meet the legal criterion of Capotori's definition. The author says the criterion sucks and we should do away with it, but he clearly outlines the Capotori definition and proceeds to say that the Roma do not meet it. Furthermore, answer choice A furthermore characterizes passage B as a "point-by-point" argument which suggests that something would fulfill the criteria on all counts. So I am having considerable difficulty seeing how answer choice A can be justified here.

[rinagoldfield]

Hi marshal_of_grey,

Thanks for your post.

Let’s start by summarizing the passages.

Passage (A) describes how of the absence of a universally accepted definition of a "national minority" poses problems for Roma. Passage (B) compares Roma to a particular definition of a "national minority." It relates Roma to the definition’s legal criterion in its first paragraph and the definition’s four empirical criteria in its second paragraph.

So we’re looking for something like "the absence of a universally accepted definition of Y poses big problems for X" followed by "X compared to one definition of Y."

Answer choice (A) basically does this.

You’re right that Passage (B) isn’t an exact match for the second title in answer choice (A). But I notice that you don’t argue that another answer choice gives a better match.

Answer choice (A) offers the relationship that is most analogous to the relationship between the passages. The other answer choices aren't even close.