soj wrote:Has anyone else done PT33 RC? Can someone explain Q24?
TCR is B, but after waffling between B and D (and at one point selecting B), I ended up with D. As far as I can see, the only indication of the author's attitude toward 18c lawyers is in lines 24-26: "Reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the profession's reverence for tradition and precedent." The author's attitude toward reform is mostly positive, so the author's attitude toward the lawyers must be negative. That brought me down to (B) critical and (D) scornful. I know LSAT is rarely scornful, but I thought it might actually fit in this case ("frustrated ... by the vested interests," "reverence for tradition"). Why not? Am I reading too much into this? Would this sentence have to have been even more dismissive in order to be considered scornful?
i did that section about two weeks ago and i got that same question wrong, though i actually went the opposite of you. i don't have the test with me, but from what i recall that was the only indication of the author's attitude, which is what drove me to pick neutral (which was a dumb mistake b/c clearly he was criticizing lawyers though in a more evenhanded way). i think in order for it to be considered scornful he would have needed to be much more critical, i.e. say something along the lines of "obstinently/stubbornly refuse to reconsider precedent" or to make it seem ridiculous that lawyers would be so set on tradition etc. just my takeaway from the passage, i can give you further impressions later when i get my lsat material if you'd like. hth.
Thanks, that was helpful. I guess mentioning vested interests and reverence for tradition isn't in and of itself scornful. You're right that to be scornful, the author would have had to make a stronger, more charged accusation. Also, my own personal scorn for vested interests and traditionalism probably contributed to my selecting D. Bad mistake.
@jim-green: My answering technique in RC still needs work. I also do the reading and marking fine, but I often waste quite a bit of time answering Qs. Usually, I'll read a Q, and before reading ACs, I'll make a decent effort at prephrasing (or even just general categorizing--e.g. "something negative") if the answer seems within reach of my memory.
If I can't come up with any kind of prephrase, sometimes I'll read the ACs, and other times I'll go directly to the passage and refresh my memories before reading the ACs. The latter is definitely not efficient because often you can eliminate ACs even when you don't have a prephrase. Re-reading the passage before you've even read the ACs is a huge waste of time if it turns out the stuff you were re-reading isn't even mentioned in the ACs.
I think the best strategy is to gain a good general (not specific, that's too hard) grasp of the content (not to mention tone, structure, and all that stuff) while reading so that even when you can't come up with a prephrase, you can eliminate a few ACs. The line-by-line investigative work can come after you've eliminated some ACs.