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

Which one of 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 author’s interpretation of the study in Paragraph 3, then find an answer that calls it into question

Answer Anticipation

We'll approach Weaken questions in Reading Comprehension in a very similar manner as we would in Logical Reasoning. We can review the excerpt from the passage, just like we'd carefully read an argument in LR. We’ll then interrogate the claim for any weaknesses, as the correct answer on both RC and LR will probably weaken the claim by exploiting a problem. Additionally, causation flaws are commonplace on Weaken questions in both RC and LR, so we should be especially mindful of those.In this case, were asked to waken the author’s interpretation of the study involving the family from the third paragraph. A quick glance at our notes can remind us that the author argued that rhetorical factors (like expressing intimacy or humor more emphatically) led this family to pepper their English conversations with the occasional Spanish word or phrase.This is a causal claim. The author argues that rhetorical decisions cause the family to use the occasional Spanish word or phrase. The most common way to weaken a causal claim on the LSAT is by undermining the correlation. In this case, the correct answer might show other instances in which the family wanted to make a rhetorical point (such as expressing intimacy or humor) but did not use Spanish to do so. This technique is often called "cause without the effect." It would suggest rhetorical factors might not lead this family to use Spanish.Alternatively, the correct answer could show an effect produced without the supposed cause preceding it. In this case, that might involve the family using the occasional Spanish without any change in rhetorical factors. This technique is often called "effect without the cause." It would also undermine the correlation linking rhetorical factors to code-switching, as it would suggest that some other factor is leading this family to use the occasional Spanish word or phrase.That said, many things could feasibly weaken the author’s interpretation of the study, so we should keep an open mind as we progress through the answer choices. We'll start by asking ourselves, "Does this make the author’s belief that rhetorical factors led this family to code-switch less convincing?"

Answer choices

  1. A
    In a previous twelve–month Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this make the author’s belief that rhetorical factors led this family to code-switch less convincing?

    Yes! As we anticipated, this provides an example of “effect without the cause.” The answer choice shows that over a twelve-month period, the family did not code-switch unless there was a change in situational factors. This answer choice suggests that situational factors could have changed and led the family to use Spanish, even when they didn’t have a rhetorical reason to do so. In other words, there were cases in which the effect occurred (use of Spanish) without the cause preceding it (rhetorical reason to use Spanish). This undermines the author’s correlation between rhetorical factors and the use of Spanish, weakening the author’s causal explanation.

    One could also think of this as “cause without the effect.” Over the course of a year, members of the family would have presumably wanted to make many rhetorical points — like express humor or intimacy more emphatically. However, unless there was a change of situational factors, they did not use Spanish to make these rhetorical points. Therefore, this answer choice suggests that there could have been many cases in which the cause was present (rhetorical factors) without the effect following (use of Spanish). Answer choices that really weaken a causal claim often work as both “cause without the effect” and “effect without the cause.”

  2. B
    In a subsequent twelve–month Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this make the author’s belief that rhetorical factors led this family to code-switch less convincing?

    Nope. If this answer does anything, it supports the author’s interpretation. It supports the author’s assumption that situational factors weren’t leading this family to code-switch, which aligns with the author’s belief that rhetorical factors are the real explanation.

  3. C
    In a subsequent twelve–month Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this make the author’s belief that rhetorical factors led this family to code-switch less convincing?

    Not quite, although it does look a little like “cause without effect.” If a twelve-month study showed that the family always used English to express intimacy and humor, it would weaken the correlation between rhetorical factors and code-switching. But this answer choice is very weak — the family “occasionally” expressed intimacy and humor through English. This answer doesn’t change the fact that the family did switch to Spanish at times, and that switch must have some explanation. Even if there are other times when the family expressed certain attitudes in English, the times that they expressed them in Spanish could still have been due to rhetorical factors.

  4. D
    When asked about the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this make the author’s belief that rhetorical factors led this family to code-switch less convincing?

    Nope. The family members’ use of English with the researchers could have been explained by situational factors. Maybe the family didn’t think the researchers spoke Spanish, or maybe the family just felt more comfortable using English with these researchers. How they responded in this situation doesn’t speak to whether there were rhetorical reasons for their code-switching at home.

  5. E
    Prior to their discussions Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this make the author’s belief that rhetorical factors led this family to code-switch less convincing?

    No. Note how this is phrased — the family members “did not describe” their code-switching as serving to emphasize certain ideas. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have if someone asked. It’s possible that the family just hadn’t thought about it — in fact, it’s suggested they weren’t aware they were even code-switching. So this answer doesn’t call the author’s explanation into question. Note that if this answer had said that family members previously described their occasional use of Spanish as having a situational basis, this conversation would be very different!

What this tests

Discussion

  • Why is A correct? 3 replies

    Started by Shiyi-Zhang

  • Condition Help 2 replies

    Started by lxnxrd19

  • Answer A 1 reply

    Started by christinea303

View all discussions Start a discussion