Q9

[jardinsouslapluie5]

Why not (D)?

[slimjimsquinn]

The flaws in answer choice D) are mostly technical:

Flaw #1: "It analyzes the causes of a specific historical event..."
- there could only be one possible cause mentioned: the readjustment movement mission to stop government involvement and increase Native American assimilation. There is just one mentioned, not more.

Flaw #2: "and predicts future development"
- the first paragraph is there solely to provide context, not to make any projections. Did you misinterpret "future development" to mean what follows the 1940's and 1950's readjustment movement? I think "future development" in answer D) is referring to "future development" from the point of the 1956 meeting.



A) is correct because it provides context for the conflict that is underlying the 1956 negotiation. The conflict they refer to is a battle between the readjustment movement's to assimilate Native Americans (via land dispossession resulting from past taxation) versus the "emergence of Native American leadership and efforts to reaffirm tribal identity."


Hope that explains some!

[Not Malakai]

Can someone explain why b ) is wrong?

It seemed reasonable to suggest that when b ) states "Presents two positions..." that these positions could be reasonably inferred to be the position/efforts of the BIA to the position/efforts of the Native Americans)?

Or does this within the LSAT RC context solely refer to positions being argumentative positions that are explicitly mentioned in the passage?

Help would be greatly appreciated.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

It seemed reasonable to suggest that when b ) states "Presents two positions..." that these positions could be reasonably inferred to be the position/efforts of the BIA to the position/efforts of the Native Americans)?

Or does this within the LSAT RC context solely refer to positions being argumentative positions that are explicitly mentioned in the passage?

The latter of your two interpretations is correct. In order for us to say that it "presents" two positions, we would need to see two positions being advocated. But instead we see two group presented that come into conflict.

Notice that the author does not take a position throughout this passage. There is no argument here, but rather the outline of an historical episode. Answer choice (A) does a great job of describing the purpose of the first paragraph. The second paragraph outlines the offer by one side of the negotiations. The third paragraph goes on to describe the response to that offer made in the second paragraph. While the final paragraph goes on to discuss the implications of the response outlined in the third paragraph.

Incorrect Answers
(B) neither position in the negotiation is outlined until the second and third paragraphs. Additionally, neither position is defended in the passage.
(C) falsely claims that there is more than one interpretation presented in the passage of the historical conflict discussed.
(D) falsely claims that a prediction is made about a future development. And also as slimjimsquinn pointed out, there is no analysis here, just the presentation of information.
(E) may be true, but does not describe the purpose of the information - sometimes the trickiest of wrong answers on questions that ask you to describe the purpose of the information.