so, for spotlight passages, is the main point and purpose of the passage basically the same thing? what the author finds interesting, significant, etc.?
Is it possible to present more than one solution for a Problem-Analysis? If so, would it then be difficult to differentiate that type of question from a Phenomenon-Hypothesis?
Okay I think I understand the difference between main point and purpose of passage questions.
If I am questioning an action that someone took, I might ask myself two questions: 1) what actions did they take and 2) why did they take that action?
If I can make an analogy of saying "Here is what the person did, this is the point of their action" (grabbing something out of my hand maybe to take my ice cream cone away) to the main point of a passage, then I can analogize the concept of the purpose of the passage to saying "This person took away my ice cream cone for the reason that they could enjoy it instead" (their ultimate motive behind their action was to enjoy it instead).
Answering a "main point" question is being descriptive in an objective sense of what exactly the content of the passage was. A "purpose of passage" question seems to be more on the subjective side than a main point question. The purpose consists of an objective side of describing at least one thing, but it also might be more subjective in that it illustrates what the main motivation for writing the passage in the first place was.
When someone steals my ice cream cone, I would say the main point of the action was simply to take it away from me (using the word steal is already causing a reader to interpret what a motive might be). However, saying that someone stole my ice cream cone would reveal the purpose behind simply taking the cone away from me. There is the objective side, but there is also the more subjective side of the motive behind why the robber did such a thing. Do I know exactly why they did it? No, but I can put clues together from their actions. In the end, I don't know for sure. They could have stolen it to enjoy for themselves, or maybe there is an underground ice cream theft cult dedicated to selling stolen ice cream cones on the black market. Just like I can't prove either of those without the extra, additional context of multiple actions from the robber, I can't quite tell what the motive of the author was in writing the passage without carefully reading between the lines.
#feedback I think there is a typo under the Phenomenon-Hypothesis passage style in the line "If the author is neutral, the main point is to present someone’s critique or to present a debate. (Look back to the Greek Dramas passage for an example of this.)" where it says "main point" instead of "primary purpose."
0
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.
8 comments
Maybe a good way to look at Main Purpose, is that its looking for a why.
Main point looks for the what the author talks about, and Main Purpose looks for the Why and maybe with the what.
Some examples would be helpful.
This is sooo helpful!
so, for spotlight passages, is the main point and purpose of the passage basically the same thing? what the author finds interesting, significant, etc.?
good reminder!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgIN0YimDow
Is it possible to present more than one solution for a Problem-Analysis? If so, would it then be difficult to differentiate that type of question from a Phenomenon-Hypothesis?
Okay I think I understand the difference between main point and purpose of passage questions.
If I am questioning an action that someone took, I might ask myself two questions: 1) what actions did they take and 2) why did they take that action?
If I can make an analogy of saying "Here is what the person did, this is the point of their action" (grabbing something out of my hand maybe to take my ice cream cone away) to the main point of a passage, then I can analogize the concept of the purpose of the passage to saying "This person took away my ice cream cone for the reason that they could enjoy it instead" (their ultimate motive behind their action was to enjoy it instead).
Answering a "main point" question is being descriptive in an objective sense of what exactly the content of the passage was. A "purpose of passage" question seems to be more on the subjective side than a main point question. The purpose consists of an objective side of describing at least one thing, but it also might be more subjective in that it illustrates what the main motivation for writing the passage in the first place was.
When someone steals my ice cream cone, I would say the main point of the action was simply to take it away from me (using the word steal is already causing a reader to interpret what a motive might be). However, saying that someone stole my ice cream cone would reveal the purpose behind simply taking the cone away from me. There is the objective side, but there is also the more subjective side of the motive behind why the robber did such a thing. Do I know exactly why they did it? No, but I can put clues together from their actions. In the end, I don't know for sure. They could have stolen it to enjoy for themselves, or maybe there is an underground ice cream theft cult dedicated to selling stolen ice cream cones on the black market. Just like I can't prove either of those without the extra, additional context of multiple actions from the robber, I can't quite tell what the motive of the author was in writing the passage without carefully reading between the lines.
#feedback I think there is a typo under the Phenomenon-Hypothesis passage style in the line "If the author is neutral, the main point is to present someone’s critique or to present a debate. (Look back to the Greek Dramas passage for an example of this.)" where it says "main point" instead of "primary purpose."