PrepTest 112

[lcid:3545] Prep Test 112 LSAT — Reading Comp — S2 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 1-6  .        Traditionally, members of a community such as a  . town or neighborhood share a common location Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Social Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Background on technology's effect on community and advocates' view (computer conferences replace traditional communities)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Tradition communities promote interdependence, mutual respect, and support (first sentence)
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • As technology develops, people are spending less time in the neighborhood and more time online (second sentence)
    • Comparison, according to the advocates:
      • Internet communities can play the same role as physical communities (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "sometimes more alienating" (second sentence), "tend" (second sentence), "require" (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Support for advocates' viewpoint (computer conferences are communities with common interests and etiquette/trust)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • List of reasons why computer conferences are communities, according to advocates:
      • They share interests or concerns (second sentences)
      • They by conventions, which displays their etiquette and trust (third and last sentences)
    • Examples of internet conventions, accordign to advocates:
      • Abbreviations, like "pardon me for cutting in" ("pmfci") & "in my humble opinion" ("imho"), typing smiley faces, not using all caps (fourth through sixth sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's criticism of the advocates' view (not communities because they are self-selecting and not diverse)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • computer conferences are not truly communities because they discriminate against people who lack education or means to use computers and are not as diverse as traditional communities (first through last sentences)
    • Comparisons, according to the author:
      • The shared interest of computer conferences is not analogous to the shared space of a traditional community, as you self-select instead of being stuck where you live; it might be easier to find common ground in traditional communities, but an actual community is more diverse (third through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "while it is true" (first sentence), "can be both" (first sentence), "nonetheless fall short of communities" (first sentence), "discriminate along educational and economic lines" (second sentence), "this analogy simply does not work" (third sentence), "more likely (fifth sentence) "unfortunate" (last sentence), "valuable" (last sentence)

Main Point: Computer conferences are not an adequate substitute for the community in towns and neighborhoods because these conferences lack an essential element of diversity.

Meta-Structure?

Criticizing a Viewpoint: This passage uses a Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure.* In such a structure, the author describes a view held by another person or group and then criticizes their view. Importantly, the author's argument should focus primarily on why the view is wrong, unjustified, or misguided.

The first paragraph of this particular passage lays out a claim made by advocates of computer conferences; they say that these conferences "function as communities that can substitute for traditional interactions with neighbors" (P1, S4). The second paragraph, with painfully dated descriptions of internet talk, articulates the support these advocates rely on. Then, in the third paragraph, the author criticizes the advocates' view, arguing that computer conferences "fall short of communities" (P3, S1). Although these computer conferences may share some attributes with real communities, they are missing the essential diversity of towns and neighborhoods. Since the author's main point is that the advocates are wrong about computer conferences, this passage perfectly fits a Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure.

In a passage that utilizes this type of structure, the main point will be the author's central criticism or a summary of the criticisms. Since there isn't quite a moment in the text where the author offers a succinct summary, we'll have to forge our own. All of the author's criticisms hinge on the fact that these computer conferences are not truly diverse, so we can expect a main point that looks something like "computer conferences are not an adequate substitute for the community in towns and neighborhoods because these conferences lack an essential element of diversity."

*As is true for many passages that fall in the Critical Meta-Structure family, other Meta-Structures would fit this passage as well. You could certainly argue that this is a Rebutting Critics passage (although we typically reserve that designation for passages where the view the author corrects/rebuts is a criticism) or a Correcting the Record passage (although we typically reserve that designation for passages where the view the author corrects/rebuts is a misunderstanding or oversight). You could even say this is a Question/Answer passage since the author provides two answers to the question posed at the beginning of the second paragraph. Any of these Meta-Structures would help you identify the passage's main point and structure.

Comparison: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is the comparison. Both the advocates' and author's arguments hinge on an analogy between computer conferences and traditional communities. The advocates claim the two are alike in essential ways, while the author claims the two have critical differences. Expect several questions to address the analogy between the two "communities."

Last Thoughts?

This is a particularly dated passage. Its description of computer conferences is antiquated to the point of being comical. Yet, as weird as it is, this passage is good practice for submitting yourself to the author's perspective. It doesn't matter if some of our author's concerns about the web are no longer relevant — we want to imagine ourselves in the world in which the author is writing.

Question prompt

What is the primary Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Consult notes to review the role of the second paragraph, and choose the answer choice based on your understanding of the purpose of that paragraph in the passage's overall argument

Answer Anticipation

After reading each paragraph, we should take a few seconds to note or reflect on its role. Doing so will help us track the author's argument, find details for questions, and directly answer Argument Structure questions like this one.Our note for the second paragraph is, "Support for advocates' viewpoint (computer conferences are communities with common interests and etiquette/trust)." Focusing on the role-oriented note, we'll see that the second paragraph supports the argument the computer conference advocates make in the first paragraph (that computer conferences are an adequate substitute for communities). So, let's look for an answer choice that matches that role.

Answer choices

  1. A
    to add detail to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say the second paragraph supports the argument the computer conference advocates make in the first paragraph?

    Not at all. What's more, the second paragraph does not provide any "details" about why computer conferences started. (A) is out.

  2. B
    to give evidence challenging Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say the second paragraph supports the argument the computer conference advocates make in the first paragraph? 

    Not quite. The second paragraph gives evidence that supports the argument of the advocates. The third paragraph lays out the author's argument against their claim. (B) is out.

  3. C
    to develop the claim Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) Does this say the second paragraph supports the argument the computer conference advocates make in the first paragraph?

    Yes, exactly! This perfectly matches our anticipation, so we can select it and move on to the next question.

  4. D
    to introduce an objection Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say the second paragraph supports the argument the computer conference advocates make in the first paragraph?

    No. There are no objections raised in the second paragraph. The author's criticism doesn't come until the third paragraph. We can eliminate (D).

  5. E
    to anticipate the characterization Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say the second paragraph supports the argument the computer conference advocates make in the first paragraph?

    Nope. Again, this paragraph articulates an argument that the third paragraph then attacks. The second paragraph doesn't "anticipate" the argument made in the third paragraph. The second paragraph details the argument that the third paragraph rebuts.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Explanation 4 replies

    Started by Milo-Hammer