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 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?
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.
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
The LSAT writers have too much time on their hands. I said it.
25
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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
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?
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?
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.
I have trouble seeing how the last sentence indicates author's opinion. Couldn't it also be just Turner's opinion?
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
My vocabulary definitely is not up to passages like these.
The LSAT writers have too much time on their hands. I said it.