Q27

[laurensheung]

I chose C at first. But I am confused by the distinction between A and C now.

Is C wrong because of the "support a policy recommendation" part or the "support its claim" part?

For passage B, does "not necessarily endorse" equal to "not support"?

Thanks a lot!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, laurensheung!

This question requires us to take a big picture view of each of the passages. Each answer choice provides a short, abstract description of each passage. Working from wrong to right is going to be the key on a question like this: the correct answer may not be phrased the way we might have predicted, but every wrong answer will be definitively wrong for a specific reason.

Let's start with (C):

Passage A certainly seems to invoke principles, though I'm honestly not sure whether they are 'commonly held' or not. Whether it supports a 'policy recommendation' is a bit concerning - on the one hand, no specific course of action is proposed (i.e., 'there ought to be a law prohibiting blah blah blah'). However, the second half of the last paragraph answers the question "what ...ought to be done?" with "[a]ctual ownership of property must then be brought into conformity." I might be able to make an argument either way.

What's far more concerning about this answer is that it accuses Passage B of relying on "the views of established authorities to support its claims." The only "established authority" mentioned in Passage B is the 1790 Congress. But does the author rely on them for support? Not at all! The author simply introduces their legislation (Indian Nonintercourse Act), explains its purpose, then outlines the reasoning that could be behind that legislation.

The author is actually outlining the reasoning that could support the authority (Congress/ the Act), rather than relying on the authority to support the claims!

The Unpredictable Right Answer
The correct answer, (A), is not what I might have predicted. However, it is a reasonable description of the two passages. Passage A is very general and abstract - no specific applications, details, or examples. Passage B definitely sketches an argument.

The surprising bit comes at the end - the argument is one the author "does not necessarily endorse." In other words, the author may or may not endorse it! This isn't the same as saying it's an argument that the author "doesn't support" - that would imply the author is clearly against it. In the final paragraph of Passage B, the first sentence indicates that the author may not be telling us his own view. Instead, he simply says that "one natural ... way of reasoning ... is this." That doesn't tell us what he thinks!

If you thought the final paragraph was giving us a window in to the author's POV, then (A) would have seemed a very strange answer indeed. A quick return to the passage, though, reveals that the author never actually told us where he comes down on the argument.

The Remaining Incorrect Answers
Let's take a look at what makes each of the other answers wrong, briefly:

(B) Passage A never discusses competing views.
(D) While you might describe all of Passage A as a long argument, there's no "briefly stated view" to start it off. Also, Passage B gives a clear argument in the second paragraph.
(E) Passage B never presents a view it tries to undermine.

When dealing with abstract answer choices, try to tie phrases to specific items in the passage. What "view" would be briefly stated, what "established authorities" did they mention, what "competing views" were discussed, etc. And when an answer choice isn't quite what you might have predicted, working from wrong-to-right might make it easier to zero in!

Please let me know if this helped clear up a few things!

[jasonleb1]

I got this right through POE but I'm still not 100% on the last part of A. Doesn't, "Ideally, the land should be restored to its rightful owners" clearly show the author endorses the argument?

[maryadkins]

Man, I'm with you. Talk about trying to be all tricky.

Definitely POE is the way to go here. And my analysis is that the LSAT folk get around the last part of (A) by raising the suggestion that the author of Passage B is just laying out an argument, and in that argument, there is an ideal outcome, but it's not necessarily the author's ideal.

POE! POE!

[jm.kahn]

I thought the reason psg-B sketches an argument that it doesn't necessarily endorse is correct is because the argument sketched has conclusion in line 56-57 ("ideally, the land...rightful owners"). The author doesn't endorse this conclusion. He instead says that it "may be impractical" and then suggests another way to fix it in line 58-60. Can a guru confirm that this understanding is correct?

[laurenvarg]

Just saying, it's a huge stretch to think that "Ideally, the land should be restored....original wrong can most easily be righted." along with the line (one might almost say obvious) DOESN'T indicate the author's POV! It's as if the author thinks this reasoning is a no-brainer!

I thought every answer was wrong and eventually picked C even though I knew commonly held view was off.

[andrewgong01]

Thanks for posting, laurensheung!


If you thought the final paragraph was giving us a window in to the author's POV, then (A) would have seemed a very strange answer indeed. A quick return to the passage, though, reveals that the author never actually told us where he comes down on the argument.

I agree "A" 's author did not really have a stance or arguing for a view.

But the credited answer choice , A, says "A espouses a general view".

Doesn't "espouse" imply A does have a general view though because it means A agrees, supports, and disseminates a specific view, which, in turn, implies Passage A's author does have a view. If we translate Answer A into less abstract terms this means that "A" espouses a view around certain principles of property rights and how to rectify pass injustices concerning property.


I eliminated "E" because it said Passage A "provides an argument in support of a view" (wrong cause it does not endorse a view) but I thought "Passage B attempts to undermine a view" was quite tempting because the underming was when "B" pointed out the solution that "A" talked about was not practical in reality. However, if Passage A can be said to have provided an arugment for a view (as the correct answer choice suggest) then "E" would have to eliminated because "B" does not really undermine a view; rather it adds caveat to a view? (This seems like too fine of a distinction to draw between caveats to a solution vs undermine a solution under time pressure )

[ohthatpatrick]

What Mary was referring to was the last paragraph of Psg B, saying that Psg B's author didn't endorse a view.

The 2nd paragraph of B is "one natural way of reasoning is this: _______ ."

The author seems to implicitly agree this is a very reasonable argument, but we can point to line 48-50 and say that technically the author is not advancing the ideas in 50-60 as her own.

Meanwhile, the author of psg A is advancing the ideas in 28-35, since they contain a normative claim in line 34-35 "actual ownership must be brought into conformity with this description".

He poses a question in 26-28: "What ought to be done?" and then answers that question, WITHOUT any arm's-length distancing such as "One possible answer is ___ . "

[JoyS894]

Is there another reason why A is correct in regards to the point of Passage B? It seems very clear to me that this is the author's point of view or at least it is more likely that this is the author's point of view than it is not. If even he or she does acknowledge it is "One natural way of reasoning..." I don't see how acknowledging that there is more than one way does not necessarily mean the author has a point of view. The words in this paragraph such as "obvious way," "the land belonged to them," "the land was illicitly taken from them," "restored to its rightful owners," "or returning it wherever that is feasible" indicate to me that the author is following one of the principals advocated for in Paragraph A, that "a principle of rectification" should be implemented. If someone can please clarify my confused thoughts I'd appreciate it!