Would it make sense to have an extra step for the during-passage phase in which we identify the relationship between this paragraph and the previous one?
Could someone pls explain in more detail how the second paragraph represents Zanotto OR the author's perspective?
I understand that his research is being invoked to potentially further an argument, but at the same time it seems like everything included thus far are simple matters of fact which require no perspective (like the single issue passages)
I'm understanding the content of the passage well but I'm missing the author's role in the passage. I saw a name, Zanotto's, and assumed that he was the one critiquing the myth when he's just being used as evidence.
Would it be fair to conclude at this point that the passage style is phenomenon-hypothesis?
2
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.
9 comments
Would it make sense to have an extra step for the during-passage phase in which we identify the relationship between this paragraph and the previous one?
#feedback It would be helpful to include previous paragraphs as well
The very first "However" may be the most evil "however" ever.
Could someone pls explain in more detail how the second paragraph represents Zanotto OR the author's perspective?
I understand that his research is being invoked to potentially further an argument, but at the same time it seems like everything included thus far are simple matters of fact which require no perspective (like the single issue passages)
I'm understanding the content of the passage well but I'm missing the author's role in the passage. I saw a name, Zanotto's, and assumed that he was the one critiquing the myth when he's just being used as evidence.
Would it be fair to conclude at this point that the passage style is phenomenon-hypothesis?