In a real text, the author's voice and opinion would be obvious because those would be the sentences without citations. Here they have removed the citations deliberately to make it harder to find the author's voice.
Here is what I wrote to a similar question in the next lesson. Does this help?
"In theory the author could have reversed course after noting that Turner’s work supports Ginsburg’s view. She could have said something like, “Turner’s work lends credence to Ginsburg’s view. However, ultimately other evidence shows Ginsburg’s view, though plausible, is not correct.” If the author finished that way, then we’d know the author disagrees with Ginsburg. That’s not what happened.
The author also could have said this: “Turner claims that her work supports Ginsburg’s view.” With this language, the author doesn’t necessarily agree that Turner’s work supports Ginsburg. The author is taking a neutral stance toward whether Turner’s work supports Ginsburg’s view. It might, or it might not. All we know is that Turner says it does.
Here, the author said, “Turner’s work lends support to Ginsburg’s view.” And the passage finishes with “The camera is not so at odds with Kayapo culture, it seems…”
Do you see the difference between this and the neutral, “Turner claims that her work supports Ginbsburg’s view”?
Consider this, too:
“New evidence supports the view that O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder.” Based on this statement, would you say that I have no opinion about O.J.’s guilt? Or would you think that what I said does support an inference about my opinion concerning his guilt?
I have found that a lot of important words to highlight and keep in mind are words I'm not familiar with, therefore wouldn't understand the full grasp of the sentence to apply to my reasoning. How should I approach that?
@sarah.hasan373 As I'm working through the passage, I sorta choose to ignore the jargon I don't understand and instead focus on what I can. If they're talking about info specific to indigenous culture and western vid technology, I obviously won't know much of what they're saying since I'm unqualified. i can however identify key words that point to what the author / differing viewpoints want us to know. Its like finding a needle in a haystack for I guess.
Before I went through the videos for this lesson I read the passage and did my own low res summary and everything I wrote was in the lesson! That makes me happy and these videos are very helpful!
What is one strategy to use to understand in which parts of the passage the author comes into play? This is crucial for the question that comes up later.
If the statement isnt attributed to Turner, or another person in the passage, it is the author's voice,
Also, what gives you any indication that Turner is even involved in the "Westernization due to camera" debate? Seems like the passage talks about his fieldwork as support for a view, not as Turner putting forth a view in this "Westernization due to cameras" debate himself. Thats my view, but I could be wrong.
I'm not sure that I understand how this paragraph embodies the author's argument? Can someone please explain? I saw this more as a Debate/Critique/Spotlight passage style
Why are we able to conclude the author's attitude is positive towards Turner and Ginsburg, and negative towards Weiner just from the statement "lends credence"? Isn't it more accurate to say that the author simply believes Turner's position supports Ginsburg, but nevertheless remains neutral in which side they (the author) believe is correct? #feedback
How about the way the author describes Turner's findings -- especially the last sentence? It doesn't strike me as neutral, as if the author believes the weight of the evidence isn't tilting toward one side.
Note that I'm not saying that the author strongly agrees with Ginsburg/Turner or thinks that their perspective is correct.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
25 comments
"The camera is not so at odds with Kayapo culture, it seems, that it transforms any Kayapo who uses it into a Westerner."
Isn't the bolded portion Weiner's whole argument? This conclusion threw me off
@AOnifade Saying that the camera is "not so at odds ... that it transforms" means that the camera does not transform.
"I am not so stupid as to fall for your tricks." = "I will not fall for your tricks."
"I am not so scared that I run from battle immediately." = "I do not run from battle immediately."
In a real text, the author's voice and opinion would be obvious because those would be the sentences without citations. Here they have removed the citations deliberately to make it harder to find the author's voice.
I am unconvinced about the author's POV being shown can anyone explain that a little more in depth?
Here is what I wrote to a similar question in the next lesson. Does this help?
"In theory the author could have reversed course after noting that Turner’s work supports Ginsburg’s view. She could have said something like, “Turner’s work lends credence to Ginsburg’s view. However, ultimately other evidence shows Ginsburg’s view, though plausible, is not correct.” If the author finished that way, then we’d know the author disagrees with Ginsburg. That’s not what happened.
The author also could have said this: “Turner claims that her work supports Ginsburg’s view.” With this language, the author doesn’t necessarily agree that Turner’s work supports Ginsburg. The author is taking a neutral stance toward whether Turner’s work supports Ginsburg’s view. It might, or it might not. All we know is that Turner says it does.
Here, the author said, “Turner’s work lends support to Ginsburg’s view.” And the passage finishes with “The camera is not so at odds with Kayapo culture, it seems…”
Do you see the difference between this and the neutral, “Turner claims that her work supports Ginbsburg’s view”?
Consider this, too:
“New evidence supports the view that O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder.” Based on this statement, would you say that I have no opinion about O.J.’s guilt? Or would you think that what I said does support an inference about my opinion concerning his guilt?
I have found that a lot of important words to highlight and keep in mind are words I'm not familiar with, therefore wouldn't understand the full grasp of the sentence to apply to my reasoning. How should I approach that?
@sarah.hasan373 As I'm working through the passage, I sorta choose to ignore the jargon I don't understand and instead focus on what I can. If they're talking about info specific to indigenous culture and western vid technology, I obviously won't know much of what they're saying since I'm unqualified. i can however identify key words that point to what the author / differing viewpoints want us to know. Its like finding a needle in a haystack for I guess.
Before I went through the videos for this lesson I read the passage and did my own low res summary and everything I wrote was in the lesson! That makes me happy and these videos are very helpful!
"This latter use" is referring to the "transactions with the Brazilian government", not to "video to document"
What is one strategy to use to understand in which parts of the passage the author comes into play? This is crucial for the question that comes up later.
confused too, could not tell which sentence was actually the author's voice :(
I LOVE your PFP!
I have trouble seeing how the last sentence indicates author's opinion. Couldn't it also be just Turner's opinion?
But it isn't attributed to Turner -- the author is the one who is saying that something "seems" to be the case, no?
The structure of the previous lines is "Turner has found X. It seems that the camera is not at odds with Kayapo culture."
The last sentence wasn't put into the mouth of Turner or described as Turner's opinion.
I was also wondering this.
I was wondering the same thing? That is definitely not something I would have picked up on in real-time...
If the statement isnt attributed to Turner, or another person in the passage, it is the author's voice,
Also, what gives you any indication that Turner is even involved in the "Westernization due to camera" debate? Seems like the passage talks about his fieldwork as support for a view, not as Turner putting forth a view in this "Westernization due to cameras" debate himself. Thats my view, but I could be wrong.
support for Ginsburg resurgence in documentation and spread of tradition
against Weiner - videography and production is in same values of traditions
is there a sense of admiration or uplifting this visual anthropologist???
this goes further than Ginsburg to prove their beliefs in a culture
I'm not sure that I understand how this paragraph embodies the author's argument? Can someone please explain? I saw this more as a Debate/Critique/Spotlight passage style
Why are we able to conclude the author's attitude is positive towards Turner and Ginsburg, and negative towards Weiner just from the statement "lends credence"? Isn't it more accurate to say that the author simply believes Turner's position supports Ginsburg, but nevertheless remains neutral in which side they (the author) believe is correct? #feedback
That's how I interpreted it as well, with the author remaining neutral and just describing Turner's perspective. Is this wrong? #help
How about the way the author describes Turner's findings -- especially the last sentence? It doesn't strike me as neutral, as if the author believes the weight of the evidence isn't tilting toward one side.
Note that I'm not saying that the author strongly agrees with Ginsburg/Turner or thinks that their perspective is correct.
My vocabulary definitely is not up to passages like these.
The LSAT writers have too much time on their hands. I said it.
LOL😂😂😂😂😂😂I totally agreeeee 🤣🤣🤣🤣