RC Question 23 Explanation
DISCUSSION: The front-to-back explanation is the opposing explanation mentioned in paragraphs 2-4.
The author does not accept this theory. The first sentence of paragraph 3 says that it is successful “to a point”. Right away we can narrow things down to D or E.
In the passage analysis section I highlighted words that indicated the author’s opinion, such as “however”. Those words are crucial to the argument, and to answering this question.
___________
- The author only thinks the front-to-back explanation is successful “to a point”. See the analysis above.
- Same as A.
- Same as A and B.
- It is not a bad thing to be consistent with previous theories. You may know that from common sense. In any case the author does not say consistency is a bad thing.
- CORRECT. The front-to-back theory does not offer an explanation of mirrors based on the observer. It treats the objects in mirrors as real, which is false (last sentence of paragraph 2). The last two sentences of paragraph 4 say that any good theory of mirrors must consider what happens when an observer looks in.
The explanations provided by this site ought to be censored due to their blatant inadequacy and misrepresentation. If one is to provide explanations, he or she must at least put in a degree of effort that exceeds the effort required to finger paint. Unfortunately, these explanations do not match this requirement. The degree of frustration that these terrible explanations are likely to cause in their readers is insurmountable. These explanations consistently misrepresent arguments, leave out crucial details, and flat out ignore what’s necessary to understand the LSAT It is truly amazing how one could write such awful explanations and expect readers to purchase an associated product or service.
Ha, this made my day. I wish you’d left a reply email. I’d actually LOVE to talk to someone who hates my explanations. Be very interested to hear more specifics. Send me an email if you see this: https://lsathacks.com/about-the-author/
Don’t be embarrassed, I’m not angry at you. I suspect most of what you see as “leaving out crucial details” is actually simplyfying down to the core of the argument (a key LSAT skill). But if I’ve actually left stuff out, I’d like to hear about it.