DISCUSSION: Lines 48-51 contain the answer to this question. In the analysis section I mentioned the importance of structural words such as “however”. This question is a perfect example: you should take special notice of lines that follow “however”, such as lines 48-51.
- CORRECT. See lines 48-51. The two elements are “what mirrors do” and “what happens when we look into mirrors”
- The author appears to agree with the field-of-sight explanation in paragraph 1. Whether or not this is true, the main point of the passage is to argue against the front-to-back theory.
- Nonsense. The author didn’t say that no other expert could give an explanation of mirrors.
- It’s true that the explanation of mirrors is still subject to debate. But the author’s main point is that one side of the debate is wrong.
- This answer made me laugh. LSAT authors tend to know everything. They have the truth, and they’re here to give it to us. The only time an LSAT author would argue an issue is complicated is if some other person argued the issue was simple.
Need help with RC? → Try the RC Mastery Seminar
Solve hard passages quickly