Getting Screwed by politics on Reading Comp PT 30 Forum

[RaiderBlue17]

Ok so i missed a question about slavery and rice being grown pre and post abolishment. The question asked about the author's attitude.

To me, it was simply a passage about one researchers' works and the implications, thus being neutral. I saw ZERO in the passage that would reveal an author's opinoin.

YET, the correct answer was that the author was 'generally receptive' now I DONT want to play the race, game, but can I GENERALLY ASSUME that the LSAT would not allow passages about minorities: Native Americans, African Americans, etc to be negative, and that they will always be a POSITIVE opinion from the authors?

Feedback please.

P.S. this is practice test 30 I'm speaking about

[Bildungsroman]

Why are you trying to look for a general rule about race and the LSAT instead of asking for people to point out what you missed?

[RaiderBlue17]

I would happily like to know what i missed, and where the 'generally receptive' attitude came from in the passage.

I was just asking if this was much like other standardized tests, where, if in doubt, dont be afraid to pick the positive outlook regarding minorities.

Just trying to have a bit of fun, maybe a couple every once in a while

Cheers Mate!

[TommyK]

Yes, you can generally assume that a LSAT will not have a passage suggesting minorities are inferior.

You can also assume that you completely missed something in the passage. I doubt this is the first question that you got wrong.

Edit: Also, since when is not suggesting minorities are inferior considered "politics"?

[JamMasterJ]

how do you get "screwed" by a practice test. Now you know that generally, the author is at least somewhat positive to most minority groups, so you're not really screwed.

[RaiderBlue17]

Tommy! Nobody said minorities were inferior, you're trying to put words in my mouth, and assumptions into others minds.

All i asked is if it was safe to assume that passages regarding minorities would be painted in a positive light. Do YOU honestly think that NO minority group has done something wrong? I mean Slavery didn't just happen, SOMEBODY sold those people... It's wrong on both accounts, buying and selling people.

Anyways, don't get all offensive, I was having some fun, and Politics was directed at keeping the test politically correct. Which it is, you're surely an educated individual, so I'm guessing you've heard of genocide stories and governmental corruption that occurs across the globe.

Cheers buddy, take a breather man

P.S. yeah, i've missed questions, and, hey! that's life, doesn't detract from the question at hand.

[TommyK]

Fair enough. I was overly sensitive to your question. It's like when somebody starts a joke with, "Now, I'm not racist, but..." It usually taints whatever he says next.

To respond to the heart of your question, these passages are largely lifted from academic journals, right? I'm trying to imagine an academic journal article that would paint an historically oppressed group in a negative light. I'm guessing they exist, but are probably greatly outnumbered by ones that are value neutral or positive in tone. I think this is probably more of a function of the oppressor/oppressed relationship than any political correctness, though. Just my thoughts. I guess I wouldn't apply any specific "rule" to the political correctness of the LSAT, but just try to be more sensitive to some of connotations of words to pick up on any not totally explicit view.

[soj]

Do YOU honestly think that NO minority group has done something wrong? I mean Slavery didn't just happen, SOMEBODY sold those people... It's wrong on both accounts, buying and selling people.

what is this i don't even

you got that question wrong because you suck at reading, not because the test screwed you by being politically correct. nice backtracking, but you're butthurt.

read the passage again--there are specific words that reveal the author's attitude toward the study.

and no, passages about minorities won't always be positive. they could be neutral. they could even be negative--it all depends on how that study portrays the minority group.

[rinkrat19]

All i asked is if it was safe to assume that passages regarding minorities would be painted in a positive light. Do YOU honestly think that NO minority group has done something wrong? I mean Slavery didn't just happen, SOMEBODY sold those people... It's wrong on both accounts, buying and selling people.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that blaming slaves for slavery is probably going to result in a wrong answer on most tests.

(Yes, there was some African participation in the slave trade at its source in Africa. But once the slaves got to the Colonies, the people doing the buying and selling were not slaves. HTH )

[thegoodpart]

"Given the history of bias in standardized testing, it is no surprise that Law Services is very careful in how they present traditionally underrepresented groups. What is surprising is the consistency in the tone used by the test writers. In dozens of passages addressing traditionally underrepresented groups that have appeared on the LSAT in the past 15+ years, every single passage has addressed these groups in a positive manner."

Power Score Reading Comprehension Bible p.218

[vanwinkle]

It's called the Reading Comprehension section, not the General Assumptions section. The answers are always there in the passage. If you find yourself needing to rely on assumptions, you're probably about to be wrong.

That said... I do imagine the test creators try to avoid passages that are negative toward minorities, in order to maintain the accuracy of the test. Most members of Group A will not have a distracting emotional response to something that represents Group B positively. However, members of Group B may be emotionally affected by a passage that negatively represents Group B, causing them to function worse than unaffected members of Group A. The latter can create greater inconsistencies than the former.

[JamMasterJ]

It's called the Reading Comprehension section, not the General Assumptions section. The answers are always there in the passage. If you find yourself needing to rely on assumptions, you're probably about to be wrong.

That said... I do imagine the test creators try to avoid passages that are negative toward minorities, in order to maintain the accuracy of the test. Most members of Group A will not have a distracting emotional response to something that represents Group B positively. However, members of Group B may be emotionally affected by a passage that negatively represents Group B, causing them to function worse than unaffected members of Group A. The latter can create greater inconsistencies than the former.

PS RC Bible says this.

[Jeffort]

Ok so i missed a question about slavery and rice being grown pre and post abolishment. The question asked about the author's attitude.

To me, it was simply a passage about one researchers' works and the implications, thus being neutral. I saw ZERO in the passage that would reveal an author's opinoin.

YET, the correct answer was that the author was 'generally receptive' now I DONT want to play the race, game, but can I GENERALLY ASSUME that the LSAT would not allow passages about minorities: Native Americans, African Americans, etc to be negative, and that they will always be a POSITIVE opinion from the authors?

Feedback please.

P.S. this is practice test 30 I'm speaking about

OP, you missed the point and purpose of the passage and possibly also the focus of what the question stem asked.

Question #23 asks about the authors attitude toward THE STUDY by Vernon (which expresses some of Vernon's opinions/attitude about the slaves), NOT simply about the authors attitude towards the practice of slavery itself. There is a big difference between those two things.

As described, Vernon's study gives a big w00t! to the slaves in a way to humanize them by telling us that, contrary to prejudiced views at the time that the imported African slaves only value was for physical slave labor (pretty much like they were only as good/capable/intelligent as a farm animal used to pull a plow), that they contributed much more than just brainless physical slave labor.

In essence the study conveyed that the slaves imported from Africa were not dumb animals but instead were intelligent civilized human beings with value beyond labor. The author of the passage liked what Vernon figured out as well as her point of view and theories advanced in the study.

Re-read the first paragraph (perhaps the whole passage) carefully. Pay close attention to lines 9-12 for the authors attitude and other important main point & structure stuff: "... including some 'who KNOW how to cultivate rice.' This discovery is especially compelling because..."

Also carefully read the last paragraph to fully put together Vernon's point of view about the slaves.

In a nutshell, Vernon thought the slaves were intelligent human beings with more value than farm labor livestock, the author of the passage was impressed by the study and liked Vernon's theories.

If you interpreted it otherwise, you didn't get screwed by politics. You most likely got screwed by poor reading/lack of active critical reading/didn't really focus/pay attention enough. (or perhaps by preconceived notions you have about the topic, but lets not hijack the thread into such a discussion since those always get really ugly)

PS: I'm surprised you are complaining about that passage rather than the preceding super nasty Critical Legal Studies passage #3.

[soj]

+1 to everything Jeffort said, especially this:

Question #23 asks about the authors attitude toward THE STUDY by Vernon (which expresses some of Vernon's opinions/attitude about the slaves), NOT simply about the authors attitude towards the practice of slavery itself. There is a big difference between those two things.

That's what I meant when I said authors could have a negative view toward a study about minorities. It all depends on how that study sees minorities.

And this:

PS: I'm surprised you are complaining about that passage rather than the preceding super nasty Critical Legal Studies passage #3.

[RaiderBlue17]

Butt Hurt! I'm going to have to start using that term. I gotta get out in the pop culture scene, as I've missed a gem of a phrase.

The reason I had to 'assume' the author's meaning was because of the 'evil' critical learning theory. I spent many a minute on that dag gum passage.

I'm glad to see that my idea about minority representation was proven true. Is it a go to? No!, but when you're in a bind, it can't hurt to have an ace in the hole.

Guys, I realize you're all very intelligent, undoubtedly getting a higher score than I will on the upcoming October LSAT. But have some fun, I guess reading, can't always account for sarcasm, but it's all good.

Thanks for the blip about support of the passage, I know that will prove to some that my opinion is merely racist, and that I am by default an idiot, that's fine as well. Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

Cheers TLS!