PrepTest 116
Passage
Passage walkthrough
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)
- Definition of “code-switching”:
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”
- Author’s explanation:
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
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: D
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Strategy Overview
Answer Anticipation
Answer choices
-
AA speaker who does Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
(A) Does this example feature a sparing use of code-switching that subtle and used to express certain attitudes more emphatically?
No. This answer does provide a rhetorical reason for code-switching, but not one that lines up with what the author says in Paragraph 3. The rhetorical reasons in that paragraph are for emphasis, not for lack of knowledge of the correct words in a different language.
-
BA person translating a Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
(B) Does this example feature a sparing use of code-switching that subtle and used to express certain attitudes more emphatically?
Invented words? That’s certainly a rhetorical reason for code-switching, but not the one that the author brings up. Someone translating text also is not analogous to the example the author raises.
-
CFor the purpose of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
(C) Does this example feature a sparing use of code-switching that subtle and used to express certain attitudes more emphatically?
Nope. Code-switching involves alternating between two languages smoothly in the same conversation, not switching languages for entire conversations when dealing with someone who prefers a different language. Moreover, this purpose is commercial in nature, which doesn’t match anything the author brings up in the third paragraph.
-
DA speaker who primarily Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
(D) Does this example feature a sparing use of code-switching that subtle and used to express certain attitudes more emphatically?
Yes. This example lines up with the one the author uses to support their point — the family using a different language to “express certain attitudes such as intimacy or humor more emphatically.” In other words, the author cites being more expressive as a rhetorical reason to code-switch. This answer is therefore correct.
-
EA speaker who primarily Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
(E) Does this example feature a sparing use of code-switching that subtle and used to express certain attitudes more emphatically?
Nope. There’s no mention in Paragraph 3 of switching between languages to maintain fluency in both, so this answer is unsupported.
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.