Reading comp PrepTest 157 · Section 1 · Question 10

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Background on the debate between prescriptivists (correct grammar) and descriptivists (describe language as it's used)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • The prescriptivists try to correct people's grammar to prevent language from becoming messy, while the descriptivists — who try to record language as it is actually used — believe the prescriptivists' approach is unscientific and self-defeating (first through third sentences)
  • Example of a permissible change in language, according to the descriptivists:
    • Use of "data" as singular (sixth and last sentences)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Descriptivists' two main objections to prescriptivism (language change is like a scientific law; controlling grammar is elitist)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • List of two main objections to prescriptivism, according to the descriptivists:
    • Language change is governed by quasi-scientific laws that can't be countered (second sentence)
    • Trying to impose linguistic practices on all members of society is elitist (third sentence)
  • Comparison, according to the descriptivists:
    • The laws that govern linguistic change are like scientific laws, so trying to counter this change is like trying to defy gravity (second sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "somehow immoral" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author's rebuttal of descriptivists' two objections (regulating language is possible, so language is not law-like; meant to be inclusive)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • List of two rebuttals to the descriptivists' objections, according to the author:
    • Some attempts to regulate language change have worked, so these laws are not like scientific laws; the descriptivists' belief that these regulations were consistent with the laws governing change is an unverifiable belief (first through fourth sentences)
    • While attempting to regulate language has some attributes of elitism, the prescriptivists' aim is to help people exchange ideas freely, which is an inclusive motivation (sixth and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "should be noted .... some have succeeded" (first sentence); "in large measure an article of faith" (third sentence); "must be acknowledged" (fourth sentence); "are not like" (fourth sentence); "inevitably possesses" (last sentence); "aim is one of inclusion rather than exclusion" (last sentence)

Contrary to the claims made by descriptivists, linguistic changes are not governed by science-like laws, and the prescriptivist urge to distinguish correct and incorrect usage is not purely elitist.

Resolving a Debate: We think this passage best fits the Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure.* Passages that feature a debate between two or more sides, like this passage, are usually best classified as a Describing a Debate or Resolving a Debate passage. In Resolving a Debate passages— unlike their Describing a Debate counterparts — the author will take sides in the debate or attempt to mediate the two sides to find an acceptable compromise. In this passage, the author takes a side, ultimately rebutting claims made by the descriptivists and siding with the prescriptivist approach to language.

In Resolving a Debate passages, the main point is generally the author's opinion on the debate or the author's mediation of the debate. We can often anticipate the main point by identifying the part of the passage where the author summarizes their opinion or mediation. In this passage, unfortunately, the author provides no such summary. So, we'll summarize the author's perspective ourselves: "Contrary to the claims made by descriptivists, linguistic changes are not governed by science-like laws, and the prescriptivist urge to distinguish correct and incorrect usage is not purely elitist."

*That said, several other major Meta-Structures could work in this passage. Since the author really dunks on the descriptivists' argument, we can use several Meta-Structures from the Critical Meta-Structure family. Criticizing a Viewpoint, Rebutting Critics, and Correcting the Record would all work for this passage.

List: The list is the most prominent minor Meta-Structure in this passage. In the second paragraph, the author lists two main objections the descriptivists levy against prescriptivism. In the third paragraph, the author lists two rebuttals to those objections. Since this minor Meta-Structure plays an important structural role in this passage, expect a few questions about the objections and rebuttals.

Reading with anticipation is a difficult skill to acquire, but it can help us better understand where the passage is going. If we can find a clue in the passage that lets us project where the author's argument is going, we'll be able to read the rest of the passage more confidently. Rather than being surprised or, worse, confused, we'll feel like we're in control of the passage.

With that in mind, let's highlight one important clue that allows us to predict the author's argument. After the author describes the descriptivists' second objection to prescriptivism — that the prescriptivist urge to correct grammar is elitist — the author says that descriptivists suggest that the prescriptivists' desire to correct people's grammar is "somehow immoral" (P2, S4). That word "somehow" is shady, right? That word indicates that the author doesn't believe the prescriptivists are in any way "immoral." The author didn't have to include that word. If the author thought the prescriptivists were a little bit immoral, the author would have just said the descriptivists argue the prescriptivists' "attempted imposition is immoral."

This word choice can clue us into the fact that the author is on Team Prescriptivists and that the third paragraph will probably refute the descriptivists' argument. If we notice that tonal word, we can almost predict what the third paragraph will say.