RC Question 20 Explanation
DISCUSSION: Paragraph 4 contains 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 paragraph 4.
___________
- CORRECT. See paragraph 4. 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.
Can the two things also refer to the observer and the phenomenon? Are those equivalent to the quotes you pulled? I got this right but paused a bit because looked at the quotes you mention and then also saw the pairing that I’ve mentioned and was thinking she had two sets of things going on.
No. Notice the word “however” in line 48. That indicates that the author disagrees with lines 42-47.
Thanks for the post. Although I understand why this is true, how do you see that it’s the main point?
Hi Sam,
The best way to see that this is the main point of the passage is by looking at its structure. Paragraph 1 introduces the issue of mirrors and the field of sight explanation (what happens when we look into a mirror). Paragraph 2 gives a different explanation of what mirrors actually “do.” Paragraph 3 discusses the appeal of the explanation in Paragraph 2 as well as its shortcomings, and Paragraph 4 concludes that questions of this nature can only be answered if we consider both proposals discussed in the passage.
Hope that helps!