PrepTest 116

[lcid:3560] Prep Test 116 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 6-13  .        In many bilingual communities of Puerto Rican  . Americans living in the mainland United States,  . Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

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.

Key Lines?

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

Meta-Structure?

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.

Last Thoughts?

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.

Question prompt

In lines 56—59, the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review the purpose of the paragraph including Lines 56-59, then use that and the immediate context around those lines to define the purpose of the referenced explanation

Answer choices

  1. A
    report evidence supporting the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this say the family members’ explanation of their use of Spanish is meant to highlight the rhetorical factors that account for certain cases of code-switching?

    Indeed. The case study of this Puerto Rican-American family was meant to highlight the rhetorical factors that can explain code-switching. In particular, the explanation in Lines 56-59 has the family members explaining their code-switching in rhetorical terms. This answer is therefore correct. We’d be justified in selecting it and moving on to the next question.

  2. B
    show that reasons for Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say the family members’ explanation of their use of Spanish is meant to highlight the rhetorical factors that account for certain cases of code-switching?

    Nope. So we can quickly cross this one off. Besides, the case study in question featured just a single family of Puerto Rican Americans, so the explanation for their code-switching wouldn’t highlight how reasons for code-switching differ across communities. While the Puerto Rican Americans were living “in another community” from the prior study, there’s no indication that the factors discussed in that study couldn’t also explain code-switching cases in this one and vice versa.

  3. C
    supply evidence that seems Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say the family members’ explanation of their use of Spanish is meant to highlight the rhetorical factors that account for certain cases of code-switching?

    No, so we can throw this in the trash bin. The researchers never put forward their own reason for the code-switching in this family, and the family’s explanation aligns with the author’s that the switching was for rhetorical effect. So, this answer is incorrect.

  4. D
    refute the argument that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say the family members’ explanation of their use of Spanish is meant to highlight the rhetorical factors that account for certain cases of code-switching?

    Negative. The author kicks off Paragraph 3 by stating that situational factors don’t explain all code-switching. However, the author affirmed that situational factors explain most cases in the first paragraph(Lines 11-13), and uses the third paragraph to show that rhetorical factors can explain other instances of code-switching. And at any rate, a single case study involving one family can’t call into question a conclusion about what explains “most” code-switching!

  5. E
    explain how it could Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say the family members’ explanation of their use of Spanish is meant to highlight the rhetorical factors that account for certain cases of code-switching?

    Nope. The family members being able to provide a rhetorical explanation for their code-switching doesn’t explain why they weren’t aware of doing so.

What this tests

Discussion