Q3

[sbrandt85]

The question is asking the function of the reference. The reference shows examples of what ministers did. I do not understand why C is incorrect.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The key to eliminating answer choice (C) is that it while the line reference does provide examples of activities on the part of the ministers, it neglects to contrast those activities with the sort of activities the leaders of CORE had promoted.

In line 31-38, the examples of activities that the ministers were engaged in were very different than the sort of activities promoted by the leaders of CORE. The activities in lines 31-38 were all conducted through "established political channels." (line 43) The leaders of CORE were promoting activities outside of the established political framework. Thus a main function of the lines 31-38 was to show the difference in approach, best expressed in answer choice (E).

Notice that in lines 7-8 the author indicates that up until the Downstate campaign, the ministers had remained politically moderate. Implying that this was an activity that could not be considered politically moderate. So answer choice (C) represents a different kind of activity those listed in lines 31-38.

(A) is unsupported, since the efforts were of a completely different sort.
(B) is unsupported, we are not given any motivations of the ministers.
(C) represents the wrong kind of action, since the activities in lines 31-38 were within the established political framework, whereas the leaders of CORE were promoting more radical activities.
(D) is unsupported. The author in no way indicates that the goals could have been accomplished in another way.

Does that answer your question?

[513852276]

Just make sure "change through established political channel" in line 43 does not mean "changes on established political channel". Political channel is unchanged. "changes in approach" is mainly due to a change from a mediator to a campaign leader.

[daniel]

Hello everyone!

Despite the great explanation provided, I am still unable to clearly see why (E) is the correct answer.

When I read the paragraph, I get the sense that the author actually agrees that there was a change in approach for the ministers, since they went from moderate community leaders to organizing a more aggressive protest.

I would immensely appreciate any help!

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're reading/interpreting "underscore" as though it says "undermine". They have opposite meanings.

Underscore = emphasize / support / substantiate

Does that clear things up?

[JorieB701]

I’m curious about this question specifically and the question type generally. I arrived at the correct answer pretty easily but I’m always concerned I’m getting there the wrong way. The above explanation, thank you by the way, makes sense, but now I’m wondering if I was breaking down the passage properly in real-time.

When I was reading the passage timed, I noted that the text in lines 31-39 seemed to be support for the text immediately preceding it- its overall purpose; to introduce support for why the ‘minister’s involvement in the campaign might jeopardize their positions as politically moderate community leaders’ (lines 26-30). Specifically, I thought these were supporting examples of what constituted their prior behavior in the community that earned them the description of “politically moderate community leaders.” I also thought that lines 40-43 were just kind of bringing it all together but still simply providing further support for the statement made in lines 26-30.

So, I guess what I’m trying to say is that in proving E, the above explanation seems to be looking to the text immediately following the line reference whereas I was looking to the text immediately preceding it. Correct me if I’m wrong but they both seem to do the job for the specific question, right? If so, my concern is really more about whether I’m correct in my understanding of the structure of the paragraph- the main point being expressed in lines 26-30, with the rest of the paragraph serving to support this. If this isn’t right then I guess missed the significance of what the last sentence is really conveying.

So in answering this question timed, my thoughts were:

A) Kind of the opposite of what I was expecting
B) I didn’t remember an explanation as to why they conducted it the way they did.
C) Just didn’t feel right. This felt like it was talking about the people who recruited the ministers to CORE?
D) I feel like this is a common direction for wrong answers and it definitely wasn’t what I was looking for.
E) Sure. Underscoring, or supporting—The text in the line reference was what they were doing before, so their providing a distinction as to what constituted their involvement in the community before and after the start of their involvement in the campaign.

Generally, I never seem to know when I have formulated a sufficient prephrase before allowing myself to dive into the answer choices. I get that there’s likely no perfect answer to this question, but is there a general rule of thumb? I find that when I lack a clear enough prephrase for these questions, I fall victim to the sucker choice. But here, I had already noted in my initial read of the passage that the line reference was supporting the thought above it, and this would have been enough for me to get to E. I wasted time on this question by initially searching the passage for a more detailed answer but is that step likely to be necessary some/most of the time?

Thoughts?