Suggestions for "InferAuthorPersp" type questions

LSATcantwin

This is what I would like to call my Achilles heel of reading comp. These questions destroy me about 50% of the time. I am here for guidance! What can I do to attack these questions better. How do I get inside the head of the author, and more importantly, what clues me into this in the RC passage? What are guide posts that I can look for to help me here?

Zachary_P

@LSATcantwin I was (and to some degree still am) in the same boat. I've come a long way on RC, but when I miss a question, the odds that its an "InferAuthorPersp" question is high. Since I haven't totally mastered these types of questions - RC is my weakest section in general, but I'm still pleased with how I score - take my advice with a tiny grain of salt.

I struggled with these questions for the longest time, and the memory method just wasn't doing the trick for me, so I decided to look to an outside source for guidance. I used the Trainer's approach mixed with a bit of @TheoryandPractice's approach, and while both are largely similar to the memory method, I think they have their own distinct advantages.

The later one can be found here: https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/68494

Both approaches strongly encourage reading for structure. While the 7sage method helped me improve recall by constantly pushing back and reinforcing what I just read, inferring the author's perspective really comes down to how the passage is organized. Let's say we have a passage where P1 introduces a problem, P2 gives one solution, P3 criticizes that solution, and P4 offers a new solution in light of the old one being argued against. I'm not citing any specific passage, but this is a pretty common arrangement, and it'll be helpful to show my point.

If we even have as vague an understanding of what each paragraph does in terms of the structure as outlined above, this can help us figure out the authors perspective. If an "InferAuthorPersp" question asks about something that was mentioned in P3, is the author likely to agree or disagree with it? I think it's safe to say she would agree with it, since it criticizes a view to which the author offers a new solution.

Now, I realize this is very very vague, but I hope you can see my point. By 1) knowing where to locate certain elements of a passage and 2) having a strong grasp of how each paragraph relates to the others, inferences such as the authors perspective become much easier to push out.

LSATcantwin

@Zachary_P said:
@LSATcantwin I was (and to some degree still is) in the same boat. I've come a long way on RC, but when I miss a question, the odds that its an "InferAuthorPersp" question is high. Since I haven't totally mastered these types of questions - RC is my weakest section in general, but I'm still pleased with how I score - take my advice with a tiny grain of salt.

I struggled with these questions for the longest time, and the memory method just wasn't doing the trick for me, so I decided to look to an outside source for guidance. I used the Trainer's approach mixed with a bit of @TheoryandPractice's approach, and while both are largely similar to the memory method, I think they have their own distinct advantages.

The later one can be found here: https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/68494

Both approaches strongly encourage reading for structure. While the 7sage method helped me improve recall by constantly pushing back and reinforcing what I just read, inferring the author's perspective really comes down to how the passage is organized. Let's say we have a passage where P1 introduces a problem, P2 gives one solution, P3 criticizes that solution, and P4 offers a new solution in light of the old one being argued against. I'm not citing any specific passage, but this is a pretty common arrangement, and it'll be helpful to show my point.

If we even have as vague an understanding of what each paragraph does in terms of the structure as outlined above, this can help us figure out the authors perspective. If an "InferAuthorPersp" question asks about something that was mentioned in P3, is the author likely to agree or disagree with it? I think it's safe to say she would agree with it, since it criticizes a few to which the author offers a new solution.

Now, I realize this is very very vague, but I hope you can see my point. By 1) knowing where to locate certain elements of a passage and 2) having a strong grasp of how each paragraph relates to the others, inferences such as the authors perspective become much easier to push out.

This actually makes a lot of sense.

I think right now what I am doing is trying to "memorize" what the author would say about it. I look at each answer almost and say "do they think this" while talking about the passage in its entirety.

I think if I can relate each question back to each paragraph, and then based on the structure, make the evaluation, it will help me out. Thanks, I'm going to give this a shot as well as look at the Trainer and then link you sent!

Zachary_P

@LSATcantwin said:

@Zachary_P said:
@LSATcantwin I was (and to some degree still is) in the same boat. I've come a long way on RC, but when I miss a question, the odds that its an "InferAuthorPersp" question is high. Since I haven't totally mastered these types of questions - RC is my weakest section in general, but I'm still pleased with how I score - take my advice with a tiny grain of salt.

I struggled with these questions for the longest time, and the memory method just wasn't doing the trick for me, so I decided to look to an outside source for guidance. I used the Trainer's approach mixed with a bit of @TheoryandPractice's approach, and while both are largely similar to the memory method, I think they have their own distinct advantages.

The later one can be found here: https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/68494

Both approaches strongly encourage reading for structure. While the 7sage method helped me improve recall by constantly pushing back and reinforcing what I just read, inferring the author's perspective really comes down to how the passage is organized. Let's say we have a passage where P1 introduces a problem, P2 gives one solution, P3 criticizes that solution, and P4 offers a new solution in light of the old one being argued against. I'm not citing any specific passage, but this is a pretty common arrangement, and it'll be helpful to show my point.

If we even have as vague an understanding of what each paragraph does in terms of the structure as outlined above, this can help us figure out the authors perspective. If an "InferAuthorPersp" question asks about something that was mentioned in P3, is the author likely to agree or disagree with it? I think it's safe to say she would agree with it, since it criticizes a few to which the author offers a new solution.

Now, I realize this is very very vague, but I hope you can see my point. By 1) knowing where to locate certain elements of a passage and 2) having a strong grasp of how each paragraph relates to the others, inferences such as the authors perspective become much easier to push out.

This actually makes a lot of sense.

I think right now what I am doing is trying to "memorize" what the author would say about it. I look at each answer almost and say "do they think this" while talking about the passage in its entirety.

I think if I can relate each question back to each paragraph, and then based on the structure, make the evaluation, it will help me out. Thanks, I'm going to give this a shot as well as look at the Trainer and then link you sent!

Yes, exactly! I'm glad you understood what I was going for. Best of luck!