2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- LSAT Hacks (Graeme)
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 pm
Theopliske8711 wrote:It was only after reading it over and over that I understand what "study of the present" was implying. Pretty deceptive.
You can read that as "study of the evidence available in the present". I agree that it's confusing. I read this one twice. There's no shame in reading more than once, if that's what it takes to understand.
It's easier to understand if you consider the context: The stimulus is talking about studying the past, and mentions that specialists have found useful evidence. Researchers can only gather evidence in the present.
A follows the same principle: The present can help us understand the past. But the further back we go, the less useful the present is.