If I were reading this by myself, I would never have clocked the author's OP in the last paragraph (as saying 'Turner provides support for Ginsburg). What does that mean for me? What can I do?
Maybe I misunderstood the last paragraph of the passage but I didn't get the vibe that the author's perspective came in at all and that they were merely describing how Turner supports Ginsburg. Can someone explain to me in simple terms why it's obviously the author's POV in the first sentence of paragraph 4 and not just explantation continued?
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?
@Kevin_Lin Hi, and thank you for these incredibly helpful lessons! I'm still feeling confused about how to pick up on the author's perspective when all we get is something so subtle as "lends credence to."
As per your first point, if the author doesn't explicitly disagree with a certain perspective, are we to assume that the author is supporting that perspective? If the author finished with "...ultimately other evidence shows Ginsburg's view, though plausible, is not correct," that would of course prove the author's explicit disapproval of Ginsburg's view, but I don't know if "lends credence to" is in any way comparable to the strength of "though plausible, is not correct." "Lends credence to" feels like another way of introducing a third opinion, like the introduction of Lesky's view in the Aeschylean drama passage.
Similarly, is "claims that her work" meant to be interpreted as possessing the same kind of position-signifying-language as "lends credence to"? "Lends credence to" feels a bit weaker than "claims that," and I'm not sure how to 'classify' these relatively subtle introductions of the author's viewpoint.
If we're meant to read "lends credence to" and be able to pick up on the author's stance favoring Ginsburg and Turner, I don't agree that "claims that her work supports" is neutral.
And lastly, as for your O.J. example, I'm completely lost on what your opinions are. It seems to me that there simply is new evidence that supports a particular stance, and I'm not able to discern which stance you're taking.
Sorry about the wordy questions and thank you in advance for your help. You and JY are such blessings <3
@kk558 Would it help if we framed the issue as whether there's evidence of agreement?
You're not wrong in observing that "lends credence to" is subtle. That doesn't mean it's not evidence of agreement, though.
Consider these statements:
John says X is true.
New studies claim that X is true.
New studies support X's truth.
3 is at least some evidence of agreement with X. It doesn't prove the author agrees, but if we don't have any other statements by the author that suggest there's evidence against X, would we say the author has no opinion about the likelihood of X being true? I don't think so. It's important to recognize that "support" in 3 is the author's characterization of what the studies do. It's not like the word "claim," which doesn't involve an assessment of whether the studies actually provide support for X.
1 and 2 are not evidence of agreement. So lack of explicit disagreement is not by itself enough to suggest agreement. The word "support" (or, in the passage, "lends credence to") is important because it's the author's characterization.
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.
11 comments
In this particular passage, I would definitely assume that "lends credence to" = agreement, unless stated otherwise.
Also, continuing to remind myself that the main point = the author's opinion. This little nugget continues to be SO helpful!
This technique for main point questions is AMAZING
If I were reading this by myself, I would never have clocked the author's OP in the last paragraph (as saying 'Turner provides support for Ginsburg). What does that mean for me? What can I do?
@katinthehat Same! It reads as part of Turner's interpretation.
@katinthehat I agree. "Lend credence" does not mean that the author agrees, in my opinion
Maybe I misunderstood the last paragraph of the passage but I didn't get the vibe that the author's perspective came in at all and that they were merely describing how Turner supports Ginsburg. Can someone explain to me in simple terms why it's obviously the author's POV in the first sentence of paragraph 4 and not just explantation continued?
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?
@Kevin_Lin Hi, and thank you for these incredibly helpful lessons! I'm still feeling confused about how to pick up on the author's perspective when all we get is something so subtle as "lends credence to."
As per your first point, if the author doesn't explicitly disagree with a certain perspective, are we to assume that the author is supporting that perspective? If the author finished with "...ultimately other evidence shows Ginsburg's view, though plausible, is not correct," that would of course prove the author's explicit disapproval of Ginsburg's view, but I don't know if "lends credence to" is in any way comparable to the strength of "though plausible, is not correct." "Lends credence to" feels like another way of introducing a third opinion, like the introduction of Lesky's view in the Aeschylean drama passage.
Similarly, is "claims that her work" meant to be interpreted as possessing the same kind of position-signifying-language as "lends credence to"? "Lends credence to" feels a bit weaker than "claims that," and I'm not sure how to 'classify' these relatively subtle introductions of the author's viewpoint.
If we're meant to read "lends credence to" and be able to pick up on the author's stance favoring Ginsburg and Turner, I don't agree that "claims that her work supports" is neutral.
And lastly, as for your O.J. example, I'm completely lost on what your opinions are. It seems to me that there simply is new evidence that supports a particular stance, and I'm not able to discern which stance you're taking.
Sorry about the wordy questions and thank you in advance for your help. You and JY are such blessings <3
@kk558 Would it help if we framed the issue as whether there's evidence of agreement?
You're not wrong in observing that "lends credence to" is subtle. That doesn't mean it's not evidence of agreement, though.
Consider these statements:
John says X is true.
New studies claim that X is true.
New studies support X's truth.
3 is at least some evidence of agreement with X. It doesn't prove the author agrees, but if we don't have any other statements by the author that suggest there's evidence against X, would we say the author has no opinion about the likelihood of X being true? I don't think so. It's important to recognize that "support" in 3 is the author's characterization of what the studies do. It's not like the word "claim," which doesn't involve an assessment of whether the studies actually provide support for X.
1 and 2 are not evidence of agreement. So lack of explicit disagreement is not by itself enough to suggest agreement. The word "support" (or, in the passage, "lends credence to") is important because it's the author's characterization.
@Kevin_Lin It does help! Thank you so much for clarifying. You're amazing.
Intro: Indigenous peoples are using cameras now.
Weiner: Natives using cameras is bad because it Westernizes their cultures. Anthropologists who say otherwise are naive.
Ginsburg: While using cameras will affect indigenous cultures, it will not Westernize them. It could actually help strengthen them in some ways.
Author: Sides with Ginsburg because of Turner's study of the Kayapo people's use of cameras.