Reading comp PrepTest 142 · Section 3 · Question 27
Passage
Questions 22-27 This passage is adapted from a review of a 1991 book. . In a recent study, Mario Garcia
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Social Science
Paragraph 1
Garcia's evidence is persuasive that the Mexican American Generation anticipated the Chicano reforms, but his argument that they were more radical and politically diverse than previously thought has two flaws.
Key Lines:
Lines 7-10 - The Author concedes an accuracy in Garcia's argument
Lines 10-11 - The Author brings up two flaws in Garcia's thesis, showing her opinion and previewing the passage's structure
Lines 12-15 - The first flaw is defined
Lines 30-36 - The Author highlights the main point of her rebuttal to this flaw
Lines 37-40 - The second flaw is defined
Lines 51-52 - The Author's rebuttal is stated
Lines 57-60 - The Author highlights an assumption of Garcia's argument
Meta-Structure:
Traditional View/New View - The Author brings up Garcia's argument, which states that the Mexican American Generation was "more radical and politically diverse" than previously thought. So there's a traditional view that is being challenged by a new view. Normally, the Author is in favor of the new view, or at least neutral, but here . . .
Rebuttal - The Author actually rebuts Garcia's view, highlighting two flaws in it.
Last Thoughts:
It's going to be really important that we understand the two flaws as highlighted by the Author, so let's make sure we understand them.
The first flaw is that Garcia's evidence of political diversity is not consistent. So we need to know where the contradiction in it is. What's inconsistent about it? Well, on the one hand, he's arguing that there were a lot of different viewpoints—after all, that's what political diversity is. However, Garcia also argues that the differences were "insignificant" (Lines 27-28). He can't have it both ways—either these differences are significant and thus show that there was political diversity in the Mexican American Generation, or the differences are insignificant.
The second flaw comes down to an assumption the Author points out in Garcia's argument—he assumes that "an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase in the ethnic Mexican population's activism" (Lines 57-60). However, there's no evidence this is true, and the Author brings up a number of factors that could prevent it from being true.
So the first criticism shows that Garcia treats differences as both significant and insignificant, highlighting an inconsistency; and that he assumes a representativeness that isn't established.
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- A traditional view, a view challenging that, and the Author's opinion of the latter are offered
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Garcia (and traditional implied) Mexican American Generation political activists (1930-1960) were more radical and politically diverse than previously thought
- Author - Garcia's evidence is persuasive that they anticipated reforms of "more militant Chicanos"
- Author - Garcia's study has two flaws
- Paragraph note
- Author - Garcia's study has two flaws
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Evidence for political diversity not consistent
- Ex - Debate over assimilation (League of United Latin American Citizens) versus cultural maintenance (Congress of Spanish-Speaking People)
- Garcia - The differences were insignificant - their focus was liberal reform
- Author - No, this was an intense debate, not consensus
- Paragraph note
- Flaw 2 - Activists might not have been representative
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Trend - By 1930, percentage of Mexican American population born in US had gone up
- Garcia - They were acculturated and more politically active, influenced by discrimination and WWII, and wanted full civil rights
- Author - This assumes the trend resulted in more politically active people, but factors in ethnic consciousness mean this is a bad assumption
Garcia's evidence is persuasive that the Mexican American Generation anticipated the Chicano reforms, but his argument that they were more radical and politically diverse than previously thought has two flaws.
Key Lines:
Lines 7-10 - The Author concedes an accuracy in Garcia's argument
Lines 10-11 - The Author brings up two flaws in Garcia's thesis, showing her opinion and previewing the passage's structure
Lines 12-15 - The first flaw is defined
Lines 30-36 - The Author highlights the main point of her rebuttal to this flaw
Lines 37-40 - The second flaw is defined
Lines 51-52 - The Author's rebuttal is stated
Lines 57-60 - The Author highlights an assumption of Garcia's argument
Meta-Structure:
Traditional View/New View - The Author brings up Garcia's argument, which states that the Mexican American Generation was "more radical and politically diverse" than previously thought. So there's a traditional view that is being challenged by a new view. Normally, the Author is in favor of the new view, or at least neutral, but here . . .
Rebuttal - The Author actually rebuts Garcia's view, highlighting two flaws in it.
Last Thoughts:
It's going to be really important that we understand the two flaws as highlighted by the Author, so let's make sure we understand them.
The first flaw is that Garcia's evidence of political diversity is not consistent. So we need to know where the contradiction in it is. What's inconsistent about it? Well, on the one hand, he's arguing that there were a lot of different viewpoints—after all, that's what political diversity is. However, Garcia also argues that the differences were "insignificant" (Lines 27-28). He can't have it both ways—either these differences are significant and thus show that there was political diversity in the Mexican American Generation, or the differences are insignificant.
The second flaw comes down to an assumption the Author points out in Garcia's argument—he assumes that "an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase in the ethnic Mexican population's activism" (Lines 57-60). However, there's no evidence this is true, and the Author brings up a number of factors that could prevent it from being true.
So the first criticism shows that Garcia treats differences as both significant and insignificant, highlighting an inconsistency; and that he assumes a representativeness that isn't established.
Question prompt
The passage supports which
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: E
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Social Science
Answer choices
-
AEthnic consciousness increases when Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 53-57) The Author notes that there isn't a good understanding of how these variable relate, and she talks about "variations," which isn't directional (i.e., it doesn't specify increases or decreases). Therefore, we can't infer this positive relationship between the two. -
BEthnic consciousness increases when Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 53-57) Similar to (A), this answer assumes a directionality that isn't stated in the passage. -
CEthnic consciousness decreases when Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 53-57) Another answer that assumes directionality! -
DVariations in the influence Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 54-55) The variables that are tied to variations in ethnic consciousness are patterns of bilingualism and rates of immigration and naturalization, not the influence of leaders. In fact, the Author spends this paragraph noting that political activists—potential political leaders—might not have represented the views of the broader population. -
EVariations in rates of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Find where ethnic consciousness is discussed, then find an answer reflecting the information presented there
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
This is one of those questions where if you noted the idea of ethnic consciousness, you can easily find the answer. If you didn't, then it's a lot harder. So let's talk about how to find it if you didn't note it, and then we'll circle back in the Key Takeaway to talk about how you could have known it would be important to a question.
So how can we find this? Let's keep the big picture of the passage in mind to help with the answers, and use what we know of the paragraphs to narrow down where it's likely to show up.
Paragraph 1 was background about the activists, so it's unlikely there will be a discussion of ethnic consciousness there.
Paragraph 2 was about political diversity, and a fight over assimilation versus cultural maintenance. Ethnic consciousness could be relevant there, but a quick scan leads us to believe it isn't.
Paragraph 2, however, starts with a discussion of representativeness of the "ethnic Mexican population" (Line 39), so there's a good chance we'll get mention of ethnic consciousness in this paragraph. And we see it in Line 54. There, it's said that a number of factors ("variables") help to create variations in ethnic consciousness. The correct answer, then, should reflect this.
Answer Explanation: (Lines 55-57) The Author notes that there needs to be a better understanding of the rates of immigration and naturalization and variations in ethnic consciousness these factors "help to create." So she ties this specific variable causally to variations in ethnic consciousness, making this the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
So how can we be sure to note something like this in the future? The passage lists factors in the variation in ethnic consciousness. Lists are important in RC. Factors (which are causal) are important on the LSAT. And comparisons (variations are inherently comparative) are important on the LSAT. These three elements together suggest something that we should have noted, so be on the lookout for similar elements in future passages!
And another takeaway—when language suggests a change, see if it's directional or not. There's a difference between saying something changed/varied, and saying it increased/decreased. The former could be in either direction; the latter specifies. Commonly, the LSAT will try to get you to infer direction based on more neutral language.
What this tests
Question analytics
Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.
Answer choice distribution
Accounts
Save your place across PrepTests
Bookmark questions, build weak-spot lists, and pick up exactly where you left off—built for serious repeat practice.
No payment yet. We will only email when accounts open.
Already have an account? Log in
Deeper help
Ask follow-ups on any step
Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.
Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.
Discussion
-
December 2014 SEC 3 Q27 1 reply
Started by kens
-
Started by Ryan-Mahabir