PT21.S4.Q27 (P4) - most studies of recent southeast

Henry AnHenry An Alum Member
edited March 2017 in Reading Comprehension 123 karma

Hi all!

I was wondering why answer choice C in question 27 was incorrect. Here, the word irony describes Tollefson's conclusion, which I thought was spot on.

Tollefson suggests major changes in the programs, yet he understands the complicated bureaucratic nature of the programs that may stifle such changes from happening. So to my understanding, there is a sense of irony in Tollefson's conclusion.

J.Y. explains that it is not ironic because the author agrees with Tollefson's conclusion and just wants better solutions. J.Y. further explains that had the author disagreed with Tollefson, it would be pointing out something ironic. However, why can't the author point out an irony while agreeing with Tollefson's conclusion? I can't quite understand why "a stance of agreeing or disagreeing with the author" affects "a method of pinpointing a drawback of an argument."
Can anyone explain why this answer choice is incorrect? Thanks in advance!

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-4-passage-4-questions/

Comments

  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    edited March 2017 8716 karma

    My reasoning on 27 is such: starting from line 53, the author gives us the recommendations that Tollefson offers for the problems with these educational programs. The author then switches in line 59 with the word "unfortunately," to a shortcoming in Tollefson's recommendations: that there isn't enough reasoning given about how these reforms could be enacted. Essentially, the author says that Tollefson has left out a satisfactory mechanism for enactment. I think what the author is saying here is: ok, these recommendations look alright, but tell me more Tollefson about: how are we going to enact them?

    Why is the absence of enough mechanisms of enactment important to the author? Because of the complications arising out of the "bureaucratic nature of the programs."

    I always like to break down RC into what I consider straightforward talk lol. I find if I can break down complicated passages into a regular everyday language, it helps getting to the core of what is going on in the passage. The author is saying to Tollefson here: bureaucracies are extremely complicated, you haven't given us enough.
    So now the question: the question is asking us why the author mentions the bureaucratic nature in the relevant section of the passage. The mentioning of everything an author says serves some purpose, this question is asking us what the purpose of that specific utterance is. In other words: to what end is the author saying this?

    In straight forward speak, I would anticipate an answer choice to say something like: "to demonstrate a shortcoming in Tollefson's recommendations to improve the immigration education programs." Or more broadly: "to point out something Tollefson didn't address to the satisfaction of the author."

    That is essentially what (B) says: to emphasize disappointment ("Unfortunately" line 59) in the recommendations being "general" (i.e. not entirely addressing the impediment of the bureaucratic problems.)

    I don't see "irony" in this passage or specifically the 4th paragraph. In my estimation there isn't enough in the final sentence of the passage to constitute irony. I think there would be a case for irony if Tollefson was entirely aware of the bureaucracies but completely dismissed them as overrated or something and they later were the cause of the failure of his recommendations but that wasn't our author's critique of his work. Our author is saying that Tollefson just didn't give enough solutions.

    I hope this helps
    David

Sign In or Register to comment.