Top Law Schools

Anybody have a good explanation for this one?

There was considerable disagreement and indecision on the manhattan forums even.

It was a comparative reading passage about the Roma.

Cradle6 wrote:Anybody have a good explanation for this one?

There was considerable disagreement and indecision on the manhattan forums even.

It was a comparative reading passage about the Roma.

This is a tough question. The author of passage A is pretty straightforward about feeling this way. (ln 17-20) With Passage B, however, it's more implied than stated straight out. Remember that the entire premise of Passage B is that the Roma defy Capotori's definition of minority. Passage B is a classic theory/perspective passage with the Author discussing Capotori's definition of minority and then arguing against part of it, citing the Roma as a counter example. The only argument the author makes though is that the definition doesn't work for the Roma. The author never tries to argue that the Roma represent a larger issue with many minority populations. On the contrary, the author is only concerned with the specific qualities of the Roma that make the definition a poor fit. That's why answer choice E works.

It's a classic flawless answer choice. You can't argue that Passage B doesn't feel that way based on what has been presented. Even though that's not the first thing that would have come to mind for most of us.

That make sense?