Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension  (Read 14947 times)

sea dream

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
    • View Profile
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #240 on: December 06, 2005, 09:48:48 AM »
maybe there is hope for the indifference crowd.  ;D
Nevermind. Queen of the Waitlists, anyways.

posnerd

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
  • f' off Dworkin
    • View Profile
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #241 on: December 06, 2005, 09:59:46 AM »

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.


  A search for words to find approval in the passage does not make sense... if finding a keyword would provoke you to choose tacit approval.  If you did find a keyword of approval, then the author would not be expressing tacit consent. 

Root Hog

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
  • The USA PATRIOT Act
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #242 on: December 06, 2005, 10:28:01 AM »


  A search for words to find approval in the passage does not make sense... if finding a keyword would provoke you to choose tacit approval.  If you did find a keyword of approval, then the author would not be expressing tacit consent. 


Exactly. If it is written in a upfront manner then it is not tacit. I got this one wrong. I went with enthusiatic,I think. I switched back and forth twice and I think I ended with enthusiatic. I could not get my brain to come up with a definition of tacit. When I got home and looked it up, it was obvious that this was the correct answer. I never even considered indifferent. I hate having missed this one. Just a simple understanding of the definition of an everyday word like tacit would have given it away.

sea dream

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
    • View Profile
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #243 on: December 06, 2005, 10:31:53 AM »


  A search for words to find approval in the passage does not make sense... if finding a keyword would provoke you to choose tacit approval.  If you did find a keyword of approval, then the author would not be expressing tacit consent. 


Exactly. If it is written in a upfront manner then it is not tacit. I got this one wrong. I went with enthusiatic,I think. I switched back and forth twice and I think I ended with enthusiatic. I could not get my brain to come up with a definition of tacit. When I got home and looked it up, it was obvious that this was the correct answer. I never even considered indifferent. I hate having missed this one. Just a simple understanding of the definition of an everyday word like tacit would have given it away.

I don't see how. nothing int his passage was really all that approving, it was very much a report of  Gluck's own words. Tacit meaning silent, saying that you find "silent" approval in a reading passage is going pretty far in the reasoning. Again: i really have no clue waht the official answer for this question will be, and i think anybody who claims to be 100% sure is full of bunk. if the approval is so silent that looking for word clues in the passage is so meaningless, then how do you know this silent sentiment is approval versus distaste or indifference? i'm at least more convinced when people state actual substantive arguments like how Gluck was always portrayed as having the last word versus the critics. this makes it more creditable, although still pretty iffy.
Nevermind. Queen of the Waitlists, anyways.

t L

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2201
    • View Profile
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #244 on: December 06, 2005, 10:34:06 AM »
i don't think tacit is a very common word.  i had never heard or seen that word until that question.  LSAC could have just used implied instead of tacit.  i thought that was very tricky of them because if i knew what the word meant, i would have chosen that answer.
Michigan 2L

pdiddy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #245 on: December 06, 2005, 10:34:33 AM »
Quote
  A search for words to find approval in the passage does not make sense... if finding a keyword would provoke you to choose tacit approval.  If you did find a keyword of approval, then the author would not be expressing tacit consent. 

Posernd,

I totally agree with you.  I am here posting a definition of tacit so we can take a look at it, it's from dictionary.com.  Coincidentally, the definition on the website has two wonderful examples of tacit approval:

1) Not spoken: indicated tacit approval by smiling and winking.
2) a. Implied by or inferred from actions or statements: Management has given its tacit approval to the plan.                            
   b. Law. Arising by operation of the law rather than through direct expression.
3) Archaic. Not speaking; silent.


My problem with this definition, and as I reread the entire passage just to get this one question, is that the author writes the passage as an unbiased journalist would report the news.  She simply writes, says what Gluck thinks and did, the basis for her poetry, a feminist critique, and how Gluck responds to critics.  We also know that searching for keywords for a tacit thing is completely contradictory, there are no keywords or clues since something tacit is unstated.  Nevertheless, simply because the approval is unstated doesn't mean it must exist.  If there was tacit approval, there would have to be some undercurrent, some unstated indicator that the author approved of Gluck.  Perhaps, the author would say, "The best thing about Gluck's theory is..." or "Gluck's novel and compelling approach to poetry..." would indicate tacit approval even though the author doesn't state it.  But that never happened.  Thus, we can't create something out of nothing, and that's why I think indifference is the only true thing that the author expresses.  

sck

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #246 on: December 06, 2005, 11:11:00 AM »
My primary feeling for the argument for Tacit is that when I read that passage I remember thinking very strongly that it was quite positive towards Gluck. All the explanations given seemed quite positive and did allow Gluck the 'winning' statement. If it were more indifferent, my feeling would be that there would have been less positive language used in the quotations and explanations attributed towards her.

I mean, yes, I could be totally wrong. I just remember having a sense that the passage was positively phrased towatds Gluck's attitude. I wish I could find it on the web and reread it; I keep searching.
LSN
Nontrad, with a crazy split

dalilamahimself

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #247 on: December 06, 2005, 11:30:40 AM »
I agree completely.  I know that there may not have been a verbal queue that signifies approval.  But the language that the passaged used was definitely more positive than negative.  As far as the definition of the word tacit, I look at it like this...

Let's say that the author was talking about someone notorious for committing horrible crimes and went on to list the reasoning of why they did it but they never went ahead and said that they were wrong...and this was all done in the tone that was used in the gluck passage.  I would consider that tacit approval.  I would be surprised if the indifferent answer was correct.  The reason I didn't choose that is  because I felt like...obviously the author feels something about it.  This was a tough one.  I don't know  -  I could be wrong...some of the the threads here have made me think otherwise about this one.  Maybe I'm just writing this because I hope I'm right :) 
 
Also - I've been trying to figure out how many d's there were as answers on the canadian passage.  Does anyone remember any answer on that passage being a D?

dalilamahimself

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #248 on: December 06, 2005, 02:36:38 PM »
also - someone suggested that i 'bump' my question regarding d's and the canadian law review to the top but i don't know how to do that.  i searched but can't find it.  any help would be great. 
i really need to know if anyone had answers of d on the canadian rc passage.  it's going to pretty much determine wether i cancell or keep the score. 

goinCRAZY

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Reading Comprehension
« Reply #249 on: December 06, 2005, 06:40:53 PM »

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.


  A search for words to find approval in the passage does not make sense... if finding a keyword would provoke you to choose tacit approval.  If you did find a keyword of approval, then the author would not be expressing tacit consent. 

Yes- the approval was not presented in words or phrases but the organization of the passage definitely gave it away, hence TACIT approval. It raised criticism about Glcuk and presented her answer to each and every one of them, leaving the reader with Gluck's side as the last thing they remeber. 
For example if I say that "opponents of abortion think that no one has the right to kill a fetus but pro-choice people would question rather a fetus should be considered a full human" it has a very different feel from "Prochoice people argue that because fetus is not a complete life it does not deserve the protection of the law but the pro-lifers would argue that all potential life is worth saving". In the first sentence I am with prochoicers and in the second with the prolifers. Lastly, let me just ask, how many of you came out feeling that the other poets were crazy and Gluck was the sane one? Probably most, as the author intended you to feel.