Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension  (Read 14854 times)

Patrick Bateman

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #230 on: December 05, 2005, 02:21:19 PM »
do you remember the other answer choices?  i thought the inaccessibility of the paintings had something to do with a spiritual purpose.

Brett McKay

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
  • The Frugal Law Student
    • View Profile
    • The Frugal Law Student
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #231 on: December 05, 2005, 02:40:57 PM »
Honestly, the thing that bugged me most about this RC section was that I really felt like I'd read some of the passages before. Especially the canadian law one. It's so similar to one I saw in another test (June?) with the native tribes in Canada. At least to me.

Actually, I saw similar questions all over the place. It was wild.

I was pretty stuck on how the canadian author felt, too. It's one of the ones I marked and went back to. I really, really hate the questions that ask you how the author feels.

I thought the Canadian author was "hesitant approval" or something like that, because she consciously chose "probably" and "most likely" and "perhaps" all in the last paragraph when talking about the conclusions of what the art was for.

I put the same. Those key words are what triggered my response as well. He also used "curiously" in the passage as well,

SH

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #232 on: December 05, 2005, 02:45:50 PM »
Hey are you guys sure about this question from the caveman passage?

5.  something like why the pictures were painted in some place so inaccessible - cave paitings had other functions aside from aesthetic ones

I remember looking at this one for a while and having trouble figuring it out but I think I went with an answer choice that said they were only meant for certain people to see/they were not meant for everyone.

Thoughts?

That is exactly the answer I went with, and I am confident about it.  If they were hard to access, they they wouldn't have other functions.  They were for a select group of painters whose purpose was to make everyone else have control over animals. 

exactly, if it were for aesthetic reasons, they would be on lower ground for everyone to admire.
Practice LSAT156 (diag), 163, 162, 165, 167, 168, 172, 164 :(

(all within the last week and a half...which is when I decided to take the LSAT)

Brett McKay

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
  • The Frugal Law Student
    • View Profile
    • The Frugal Law Student
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #233 on: December 05, 2005, 03:20:42 PM »
i still think indifference.

the author spent a lot of time on criticism and any compliment to gluck was attributed.

agreed. I really think it was indifference as well. I hope I'm right so I can come back to the board and be really smug about it.

pdiddy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #234 on: December 06, 2005, 08:15:42 AM »
Hey Everybody
This is in response to the Gluck tacit approval/indifferent question
I am a quick reader and I had a bit of extra time to spend on Reading comp.  I went over the Gluck passage again, in its full entirety and looked for any clue words that might show a sort of approval from the author.  In fact, the article was written so dryly that I could find no form of approval/enthusiasm in the author's words.  I even rescanned the paragraph for anything that stuck out and after that, I could only conclude the author was indifferent, like someone writing a mandatory report.  For those of you who chose tacit approval, remember that the LSAT is all about making you jump to conclusions and connect things that may not really exist.  That was at least my thinking in answering this question.

zenpeaceofmind

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
    • AOL Instant Messenger - zenpeaceofmind
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - zenpeaceofmind
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #235 on: December 06, 2005, 08:18:51 AM »
Hey Everybody
This is in response to the Gluck tacit approval/indifferent question
I am a quick reader and a pretty good English major and I had a bit of extra time to spend on Reading comp.  I went over the Gluck passage again, in its full entirety and looked for any clue words that might show a sort of approval from the author.  In fact, the article was written so dryly that I could find no form of approval/enthusiasm in the author's words.  I even rescanned the paragraph for anything that stuck out and after that, I could only conclude the author was indifferent, like someone writing a mandatory report.  For those of you who chose tacit approval, remember that the LSAT is all about making you jump to conclusions and connect things that may not really exist.  That was at least my thinking in answering this question.


TITCR

 ;D

sea dream

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
    • View Profile
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #236 on: December 06, 2005, 08:24:45 AM »
i really do wish it were so as i chose indifferent for the exact same reasoning, but i still think this question is crap. the very definition of tacit makes this whole question controversial. this is the one question i'm not going to fight for my answer choice. i'll take what LSAC says, but shake my head at their hair-splitting.
Nevermind. Queen of the Waitlists, anyways.

pdiddy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #237 on: December 06, 2005, 08:54:44 AM »
i really do wish it were so as i chose indifferent for the exact same reasoning, but i still think this question is crap. the very definition of tacit makes this whole question controversial. this is the one question i'm not going to fight for my answer choice. i'll take what LSAC says, but shake my head at their hair-splitting.

SeaDream,

I totally agree with you, there are some questions that I just shake my head at...particularly logic reasoning things.  I agree they don't always write very good questions, this may be one of them.  I looked up the word tacit and it's a totally loaded word.  Maybe the author did tacitally agree, but the passage was written so mechanically and dryly that I simply couldn't go with it.  Obviously, the dude abides, and when the LSAT scores come out I may be happy or apologetic, but either way, I'd have to agree that this is a crappy question.

zenpeaceofmind

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
    • AOL Instant Messenger - zenpeaceofmind
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - zenpeaceofmind
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #238 on: December 06, 2005, 09:15:18 AM »
i really do wish it were so as i chose indifferent for the exact same reasoning, but i still think this question is crap. the very definition of tacit makes this whole question controversial. this is the one question i'm not going to fight for my answer choice. i'll take what LSAC says, but shake my head at their hair-splitting.

SeaDream,

I totally agree with you, there are some questions that I just shake my head at...particularly logic reasoning things.  I agree they don't always write very good questions, this may be one of them.  I looked up the word tacit and it's a totally loaded word.  Maybe the author did tacitally agree, but the passage was written so mechanically and dryly that I simply couldn't go with it.  Obviously, the dude abides, and when the LSAT scores come out I may be happy or apologetic, but either way, I'd have to agree that this is a crappy question.

Definitely. For the "rules" they tell us to follow when answering RC questions, the answer should NEVER include a word like "tacit" ...

Que sera, sera...

 ;)

paigeroo

  • Guest
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #239 on: December 06, 2005, 09:47:50 AM »
Hey Everybody
This is in response to the Gluck tacit approval/indifferent question
I am a quick reader and a pretty good English major and I had a bit of extra time to spend on Reading comp.  I went over the Gluck passage again, in its full entirety and looked for any clue words that might show a sort of approval from the author.  In fact, the article was written so dryly that I could find no form of approval/enthusiasm in the author's words.  I even rescanned the paragraph for anything that stuck out and after that, I could only conclude the author was indifferent, like someone writing a mandatory report.  For those of you who chose tacit approval, remember that the LSAT is all about making you jump to conclusions and connect things that may not really exist.  That was at least my thinking in answering this question.


TITCR

 ;D

I whole-heartedly agree with zen.  I remember that on this question specifically... I was debating between those two answers... "tacit APPROVAL" and "Indifference."  I searched for ANY keywords at all that would signal approval.. meaning.. the author agrees with what they are writing about or find if favorable.  I saw NOTHING.  I too, choose indifference because the author seemed detached from what she was writing about... simply reporting rather than trying to get her opinion across.  All of you that picked "tacit approval" went for the "grab answer" so to speak.  But remember... just because the passage didn't say anything AGAINST what was being written about... this doesn't mean that they APPROVED of anything either.