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)
Oftentimes, the perspective of researchers is presented as the results of their research. That's basically it, the perspective of the researchers IS the research and what that research proves/disproves.
The author's opinion shows up in the researcher's results when the author uses a qualifying phrase to describe how the results of the research apply to the phenomenon at hand.
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.
Same! I saw the beginning of the second paragraph as the author's opinion because it was similar to how the author's opinion was identified in other passages. I don't get how it's not the author's opinion...
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
at the end of the paragraph I was like : SOO WHAT IS THE REASON
seriously, what the fuck is this passage
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)
Oftentimes, the perspective of researchers is presented as the results of their research. That's basically it, the perspective of the researchers IS the research and what that research proves/disproves.
The author's opinion shows up in the researcher's results when the author uses a qualifying phrase to describe how the results of the research apply to the phenomenon at hand.
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.
Same! I saw the beginning of the second paragraph as the author's opinion because it was similar to how the author's opinion was identified in other passages. I don't get how it's not the author's opinion...
Would it be fair to conclude at this point that the passage style is phenomenon-hypothesis?
Yes, I think so.