Reading comp PrepTest 116 · Section 1 · Question 6

Topic: Social Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Phenomenon (code-switching in Puerto Rican communities) introduced; explanations previewed (situational and rhetorical factors)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition of “code-switching”:
    • Bilingual people switching between both languages
  • Author’s explanation:
    • Some instances of code-switching do not have an explanation, but a vast majority are due to situation/rhetorical factors
  • Author’s attitude: “smoothly and frequently” (lines 4-5); “some cases that cannot currently be explained” (lines 7-8); “vast majority” (line 8); “subtle factors” (line 9); “explain” (line 10)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Explanation: Situational factors listed, supported with studies/examples
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition of “domain”: social contexts
  • List of three conversational factors that influence code-switching:
    • Setting, participants, topic
  • Definition of “congruent” factors and “conversational situation”:
    • When setting, participants, and topic go together naturally
    • A set of three “congruent” factors is a “conversational situation”
  • Researchers’ findings:
    • Researchers defined five domains (family, friendship, religion, education, and employment)
    • Provided two of three factors in each domain, sometimes congruent and others not, to see what effect the third factor had on the language used
    • Examples/Results:
      • If two congruent factors (such as parent/child as participants and “how to be a good child” as topic), students easily provided the third congruent factor and agreed on the language they would speak
      • If two incongruent factors (such as priest/parishioner as participants and beach as setting), students would disagree on the third factor and on which language they would speak

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Explanation: Rhetorical factors can also influence
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author’s explanation:
    • Situational factors don’t account for all code-switching; other language used for rhetorical effect
    • Sometimes, the speaker isn’t aware of the switch
  • Example of study on rhetorical factors
    • Puerto Rican Americans said they spoke English at home, but unwittingly used Spanish to communicate certain attitudes or to supply emphasis
  • Author’s attitude: “do not account for all code-switching”

Main Point: While some cases of code-switching by Puerto Rican Americans can’t currently be explained, the vast majority of cases are explained by situational and rhetorical factors.

Lines 1-5 - Phenomenon defined

Lines 7-10 - Author’s explanation

Lines 32-36 - Key support on situational factors

Lines 51-54 - Key support on rhetorical factors

Phenomenon/Explanation: We love it when the passage explicitly states which Meta-Structure it falls into! Line 5 refers to a “practice,” which is just another word for a phenomenon. Line 10 tells us that we’re going to be presented with explanations for it. The rest of the passage then provides those explanations. When the passage falls into a Phenomenon/Explanation Meta-Structure, the author’s explanation for the phenomenon (or their opinion on a key explanation) constitutes the main point. Here, since the author says that the “vast majority” of examples of the phenomenon can be explained by “situational [and] rhetorical” factors, that’s the main point, as reflected in our summary of it above.

Lists: Paragraph 2 goes into multiple lists of situation factors that are relevant in the explanation of code-switching. Those factors are themselves broken into two categories. Conversational factors include “setting, participants, and topic” (Line 16). The five domains a conversation can take place in include “family, friendship, religion, education, and employment” (Lines 23-24). Since these two lists of factors are central to the studies and results presented in the rest of the paragraph, it’s likely that they’ll be relevant to the questions.

The last sentence in Paragraph 1 does a lot of work. Not only does it lay out the phenomenon that the author is trying to explain, but it also creates two broad “categories” of explanation that define the makeup of the rest of the passage! That makes it a lot easier to contextualize Paragraphs 2 and 3, as Paragraph 2 focuses on situational factors/explanations, while Paragraph 3 focuses on rhetorical ones. This should help immensely as we work through the questions, as finding specific information should be relatively straightforward based on this breakdown.