I mean the whole point of passage A is that historians shouldn't even BE persuasive...they should be neutral. So AC E saying contrasting different kids of 'persuasive writing' eliminates it pretty quickly to me
how likely is it that we'll get passages like these where so many questions can be answered after reading just one passage?! its crazy how many questions could be answered just on passage A in this first pass of the "split strategy" in the lesson
E is not wrong (in my opinion) because the passage does draw contrast between other kinds of persuasive writing (advocate contrasted with propagandist) they are both ways of persuading.
@AndrewWiedenkeller The passage arguably does draw this contrast, but that isn't the point of mentioning the term "propagandist". The question asks about the purpose, not just about what the passage does.
I don't see how E is wrong 😭. It seems to me that all social sciences require persuasive writing...? Also, author doesn't say that historians tend to be propagandists. He just rejects propaganda. Thus, I don't see the "may tend" part. #help
I also felt pretty timid about rejecting E at first! My thinking here is that, since JY says to be overly aggressive, we should be absolutely ruthless about the words "persuasive writing" in answer choice E. If Passage A is so concerned with historical objectivity, the author would likely say that writing about the historical truth is not persuasive in any way -- it is just stating facts. When I say the War of 1812 happened, I'm not trying to convince a skeptic that it took place; I'm just asserting the truth. So an objective historian, as Passage A describes, would not describe themselves as writing persuasively, making answer choice E wrong.
As for "tend to be propagandists", this is tricky because the author is saying that objective historians should never be propagandists, while answer choice D says that historians in general tend to be propagandists. Essentially, there's some historians who just blindly repeat political propaganda at the time, and the author says an ideal objective historian should never do that, so they bring up those propagandists as an example of something to not do. This is exactly what the author is doing in the passage, which makes D correct.
@seleneb940 It might be that "tend" isn't referring to "regularly or frequently behaves in a particular way" here. Tend could also mean "go or move in a particular direction" or "be liable to possess or display". Those are definitions from the dictionary, which included the example "The road tends west around small mountains."
Dude I kept (A), (D), and (E) after reading Passage A—my sense is most people attracted to the split method by this point are finding they could've been a little more aggressive after Passage A lol.
Right?! Before the video was even over, I already was skimming through the answers as JY talked and saw that all but one seemed really out there and inaccurate compared to what we just read. I asked myself "Did I really just narrow it down to one?" Sure enough: yes!
@mason4nc He will introduce this method to a passage that is very compatible with it to demonstrate it. Not all passages are this easy. Still great though, but I wish all comparative passages were this easy lol
I would have skipped this question because I would have a lower confidence overall for the AC I would lean towards. I still need an alternative explanation for D #help
The lesson on split approach mentioned transforming the question stems, and that's what I've been doing.
As such, I just transformed the question from what it was to
"Passage A mentions propaganda primarily in order to"
and D fits.
My idea is that if the question asked for the primary reason BOTH passages mentioned X, it must also be the case that it's the primary reason why ONE passage mentioned X.
#feedback, I really like the combo of Kevin's explanations + typed outline that is used in this video format. It's much easier to read and follow. Thanks! :-)
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.
23 comments
I mean the whole point of passage A is that historians shouldn't even BE persuasive...they should be neutral. So AC E saying contrasting different kids of 'persuasive writing' eliminates it pretty quickly to me
how likely is it that we'll get passages like these where so many questions can be answered after reading just one passage?! its crazy how many questions could be answered just on passage A in this first pass of the "split strategy" in the lesson
E is not wrong (in my opinion) because the passage does draw contrast between other kinds of persuasive writing (advocate contrasted with propagandist) they are both ways of persuading.
@AndrewWiedenkeller The passage arguably does draw this contrast, but that isn't the point of mentioning the term "propagandist". The question asks about the purpose, not just about what the passage does.
This section is awful... I'm forced to watch the video
so far this method is looking amazing.
this split method is literally changing my life bye
same LOL
I don't see how E is wrong 😭. It seems to me that all social sciences require persuasive writing...? Also, author doesn't say that historians tend to be propagandists. He just rejects propaganda. Thus, I don't see the "may tend" part. #help
thank you in advance for responding!
I also felt pretty timid about rejecting E at first! My thinking here is that, since JY says to be overly aggressive, we should be absolutely ruthless about the words "persuasive writing" in answer choice E. If Passage A is so concerned with historical objectivity, the author would likely say that writing about the historical truth is not persuasive in any way -- it is just stating facts. When I say the War of 1812 happened, I'm not trying to convince a skeptic that it took place; I'm just asserting the truth. So an objective historian, as Passage A describes, would not describe themselves as writing persuasively, making answer choice E wrong.
As for "tend to be propagandists", this is tricky because the author is saying that objective historians should never be propagandists, while answer choice D says that historians in general tend to be propagandists. Essentially, there's some historians who just blindly repeat political propaganda at the time, and the author says an ideal objective historian should never do that, so they bring up those propagandists as an example of something to not do. This is exactly what the author is doing in the passage, which makes D correct.
@seleneb940 It might be that "tend" isn't referring to "regularly or frequently behaves in a particular way" here. Tend could also mean "go or move in a particular direction" or "be liable to possess or display". Those are definitions from the dictionary, which included the example "The road tends west around small mountains."
I didn't eliminate A on my first run-through, not sure why now that I am watching this! I'll work on being more aggressive!
Dude I kept (A), (D), and (E) after reading Passage A—my sense is most people attracted to the split method by this point are finding they could've been a little more aggressive after Passage A lol.
It's actually amazing me how many questions you can answer with just one passage
Right?! Before the video was even over, I already was skimming through the answers as JY talked and saw that all but one seemed really out there and inaccurate compared to what we just read. I asked myself "Did I really just narrow it down to one?" Sure enough: yes!
@mason4nc He will introduce this method to a passage that is very compatible with it to demonstrate it. Not all passages are this easy. Still great though, but I wish all comparative passages were this easy lol
I would have skipped this question because I would have a lower confidence overall for the AC I would lean towards. I still need an alternative explanation for D #help
The lesson on split approach mentioned transforming the question stems, and that's what I've been doing.
As such, I just transformed the question from what it was to
"Passage A mentions propaganda primarily in order to"
and D fits.
My idea is that if the question asked for the primary reason BOTH passages mentioned X, it must also be the case that it's the primary reason why ONE passage mentioned X.
#feedback, I really like the combo of Kevin's explanations + typed outline that is used in this video format. It's much easier to read and follow. Thanks! :-)
where is the typed outline?
same!
This is J.Y, for some reason he is doing the split method, and Kevin will do the sequential method.
I think they mean the pink text