PrepTest 131

[lcid:3623] Prep Test 131 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 16-22  .        The Japanese American sculptor Isamu Noguchi  . (1904–1988) was an artist who intuitively asked—and  . responded Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Humanities


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Background on Noguchi (deeply original, creative, followed a unique path) and preview of sculpture example
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Noguchi asked and responded to deeply original questions in his art; he charted a unique path in his career (first and second sentences)
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • Noguchi was like a scientist and could have become one (second sentence)
    • Example of Noguchi's creativity, according to the author:
      • The story behind a sculpture (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "intuitively asked—and responded to—deeply original questions" (first sentence); "repeatedly veered off at wide angles" (second sentence); "creativeness" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Noguchi's background (early promise; Brancusi's stonecutter) and observation (sculptors have only used negative light/shadow)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to Noguchi:
      • Sculptors have used negative light (i.e., shadow) because only gold is reliably shiny (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "exquisite comprehension" (first sentence); "deft conceptual realization" (first sentence); "scientist's mind" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Noguchi's goal (purely reflective sculpture) and suggested approach (chrome-nickel steel, a permanently reflective surface now available due to Ford)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Noguchi's view:
      • Wanted to create a purely reflective, positive-light sculpture (first sentence)
    • Comparisons, according to the author/Fuller:
      • Like nonoxidizing gold, chrome-nickel steel is permanently reflective; unlike nonoxidizing gold, chrome-nickel steel is cheap and available in mass quantities (third and last sentences)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Description of sculpture ("invisible" surface that is noticed only when other objects change in reflection) and analogy (still waters)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Noguchi's view:
      • A positive-light sculpture would be "invisible," seen only when objects surrounding it change (fourth through last sentences)
    • Comparison, according to the author/Noguchi:
      • The surface of Noguchi's sculpture is like the surface of still water — it is only seen in reflection (second sentence)

Paragraph 5

  • Paragraph note
    • After the sculpture (praised but Noguchi moved on)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view
      • Even after Noguchi received praise for his discovery, he kept on innovating/evolving (first and last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "stunning discovery" (first sentence); "inquisitive nature" (first sentence); "the genius of his original and fundamental conception" (second sentence); "next phase of his evolution" (second sentence)

Main Point: Noguchi confronted original questions and continually innovated in his sculptures, as is illustrated by a particular reflective sculpture of Fuller.

Meta-Structure?

Generalization/Example: Check out the last sentence of the first paragraph. There, we're essentially told that the author is going to use the Generalization/Example Meta-Structure as a central feature of the passage.* The author opens the passage by claiming that Noguchi was innovative throughout his career and then closes out that paragraph by saying that one work exemplifies this general characterization of the sculptor. That example is discussed throughout the rest of the passage (except the last paragraph, but even that's used to reinforce the general point about Noguchi's boundless and restless innovation).

When a passage relies on a Generalization/Example Meta-Structure, the main piont is the author's generalization or a variation of, "[The specific example] illustrates [the generalization]. ") So, we used that template for our anticipated main point.

*That said, other Meta-Structures could apply to this passage. Most obviously, this passage conforms to the Innovative [Subject] Meta-Structure, with the place holder "[Subject]" standing in for "Artist" (Noguchi) or "Sculpture" (Fuller sculpture). We could also think of this as a Problem/Solution passage, where Noguchi looks for a way to rely on positive light in a sculpture (the problem) and eventually lands on chrome-nickel steel (the solution).

Last Thoughts?

That fourth paragraph is dense and hard to understand. However, it describes the innovative sculpture, so it's important to have some handle on what it's talking about. The analogy is there to help you wrap your head around it (pun completely intended). From that paragraph, we know that the sculpture is "invisible" in that it can only be seen through the reflections in the metal. And in that way, it's like the surface of a lake - you can't really see that surface, but you can see the trees, sun, and clouds reflected in it to know where it is. Let's keep that image in mind since it's likely more familiar than a portrait of Fuller sculpted out of chrome-nickel steel!

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

Humanities

Strategy Overview

Review the author's main point, determine weaknesses in that claim to anticipate how to weaken it, and select the answer choice that makes the claim less convincing

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, we're asked to weaken the author's "position in the passage." We'll take that to mean "the author's main point," but an answer choice that weakens another point the author makes would, technically, weaken the author's position. But for simplicity and timing's sake, we'll anticipate how to weaken the main point.Fortunately, this question falls into an exceptionally common pattern in RC. A passage arguing that an artist is innovative frequently asks a Weaken question. The correct answer almost always plays on the same flaw — the assumption that this artist was the first to do this supposedly innovative thing. So, the correct answer usually takes the same form — it states that someone else did what the "innovator" did earlier.Here, the author argues that Noguchi was an innovator, and the author uses his work with positive-light sculptures as proof of this. So, what would weaken that? Someone else who made a positive-light sculpture before Noguchi did. The correct answer will probably say something to that effect.That said, many things could feasibly weaken the author's main point, so we should keep an open mind as we progress through the answer choices. We'll start by asking ourselves, "Does this make the claim that Noguchi was innovative less convincing?"

Answer choices

  1. A
    Between 1927 and 1929, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this make the claim that Noguchi was innovative less convincing?

    Absolutely. As we anticipated, this shows that another artist worked on positive-light sculptures before Noguchi. 

    We may need to review the timeline in the second paragraph to see how this weakens the author's position, though. Noguchi arrived in Paris in 1927 and went to work in Brancusi's workshop (P2, S2-S5). If Brancusi was working on positive-light sculptures at that time, then Noguchi isn't looking particularly innovative! Rather, it would seem as if he took Brancusi's idea and got lucky by finding the right material for it. This answer undercuts the author's argument that Noguchi was an innovator by suggesting he took his "innovative" idea from Brancusi, making it the correct answer. And because this matches our anticipation, we'd be justified in selecting (A) and wrapping up this passage.

  2. B
    After completing the portrait Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this make the claim that Noguchi was innovative less convincing?

    Nope. The author contends that Noguchi continued to evolve throughout his career, so moving on from positive-light sculptures to something else would support the author's argument.

  3. C
    When Noguchi arrived in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this make the claim that Noguchi was innovative less convincing?

    No. This answer might explain why Noguchi went to Brancusi to ask to become his student, but it has nothing to do with whether his positive-light sculpture was innovative.

  4. D
    Many of Noguchi's sculptures Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this make the claim that Noguchi was innovative less convincing?

    Negative. This answer aligns with two key contentions made by the author. First, that Noguchi constantly evolved and changed his style. Second, that the positive-light sculpture was something new. As such, this is more on the strengthen side than the weaken side.

  5. E
    Despite his inquisitive and Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this make the claim that Noguchi was innovative less convincing?

    No. Even if Noguchi didn't think of himself as a scientist, he could still believe he was an innovative artist. And even if he didn't think of himself as an innovative artist, he still could have been an innovative artist. We can thus feel comfortable eliminating this answer.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion