Answer Choice Wording

[bethlynnjean1395]

Hi!

So I'm having a lot of issues regarding the wording of global reading comprehension questions. In the 2018 RC Bible, there are mini-passages within chapter 7 that are perfect examples of my issue. In mini-passage #2, there are 2 questions both with very general wording that I seem to be messing up. For example, "generalization" vs "phenomenon" vs "predicament". Also, "qualifies an assertion" vs "clarifies a claim". These are just a few, but if there is anywhere I could go to get a more in-depth explanation of the wording commonly used in answer choices please let me know!

Thanks in advance!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Bethlynn,

Thanks for the question! You've run up against one of the primary weapons of the test makers: the variety of the English language. The thing is that there are so many variations of general words, that there really isn't a guide to them (well, aside from the dictionary). But, I suspect that the individual words aren't usually the problem (because, for example, in #1, "predicament" works as well as "phenomenon"). Instead, it's what happens around that word that typically makes an answer correct or incorrect. Looking at #1(A), for example, I see the following:

• "A predicament is outlined,..." — Yes, this is a reasonable description of what happens early in the passage.
  
  "...factors leading up to the predicament are scrutinized,..." — I see a problem here, since this doesn't occur.
  
  "...and an example of the predicament is offered." — Yes, I see this occurring as well.

So, in (A), the problem wasn't predicament, but rather the middle part of the answer.

When analyzing these types of answers, you want to take a relatively broad view of the word in question. Could it be a synonym or reasonably close? Ok, then accept it for the moment. Then, move on to the rest of what is being said. Does it match what occurred? Most of the time, wrong answers will drop out because of problems in this area (like above).

In #2, the "qualifies" vs "clarifies" debate is much closer. You can look at those two and know they both seem pretty similar. So, how do you separate the two? That's when you drill down a bit deeper and look at the point of difference. As noted in the book, qualifies operates a bit differently than clarifies. But, the value of studying the LSAT beforehand is that you now know how that term works in their world. By looking at as many LSATs as possible, you start to see patterns they use in their language. while there is no way to describe all the terms they use, what that will do is give you a feel for what they mean and how they mean it.

I realize that's not exactly the answer you were seeking, but hopefully it helps shed light o this enough to give you path forward. Please let me know if the above helps. Thanks!