Top Law Schools

Can anybody explain questions 6, 20, and 24? None of these are posted on Manhattan


20 is definitely one of the worst RC questions I've ever seen because it's a main point question that is literally supported by only 4 lines (49-52). At no other point in the passage does the author mention that a satisfactory explanation of mirror images must contain these two elements. I chose D for this question.

24 was tricky as well. I see why B is wrong because technically, the front-to-back explanation isn't supported by empirical data (it's a mental construct). I'm still not sold on D, though.




And even though 6 is from the first passage, I was just wondering is A wrong because it's too extreme? But isn't that the point the passage is trying to make about Gilliam's art? That it was an extreme departure from the aesthetic restrictions that most other black artists conformed to? I mean I'm almost 100% sure if we called up Gilliam right now and asked which of these statements he agreed with, he himself would pick A.

Hey walterwhite!

I think this is a great example of a passage where you've got to pay close attention to the overall structure of the passage as you go, including the final paragraph. That final paragraph can absolutely dictate the purpose for which everything else was used.

The author starts by identifying the weirdness of mirrors.
P1 is then dedicated to the standard physicist explanation.
P2 describes an alternative explanation (noting that it's based on a false premise).
P3 describes the appeal of this alternative, and points out on the way that this explanation is only successful "to a point".
P4 lays out the motivations behind the alternative explanation, then slams home the overall point, that mirrors can only be explained if we consider both what they do and and what happens when we look into them.

Essentially, the passage says: Here's a weird thing, here's one explanation, here's an alternative explanation, the alternative explanation is inadequate, and here's my blanket statement that all explanations will be inadequate if they fail to do X and Y.

Just like with an LR stimulus, the 'main point' can come at the end, after the author has built up to it. Everything in the passage is laid out for the purpose of building to the final whammy - what constitutes an adequate explanation for mirrors. The majority of the real estate in the passage is taken up by the inadequate explanation - all the time spent there is to support the final conclusion of what an explanation should do.

If the author had simply laid out the two competing explanations and never taken a side, or had not done so with gusto, then (D) would be far more attractive. But he does pick a side, and not as an afterthought. He clearly indicates that the alternative explanation is flawed: lines 21-25 (based on false premise), line 28 (only successful to a point), and then bringing it home in lines 48-51 (adequate explanations must do things this alternative explanation fails to do).

Q24 orbits the same issues, but now, we're looking more at where the author spends all his time. The vast majority of the passage is dedicated to describing the alternative explanation, as well as arguing that it's an inadequate explanation.

It sounds to me like you read too much neutrality into the author's presentation of the alternative explanation, and missed his cues that undermined the explanation in paragraphs 2 and 3. Even without those, however, the fact that the author takes a strong stance against the explanation at the end of paragraph 4 drive home that all the time spent discussing that explanation are for the end purpose of discrediting it.

What do you think?