2019 Bible Pg. 249 Mini-Passage 2 (Development Model)

[HarryK]

Hi,

When you explain answer choice (A) of question 1 on this passage, you say that the 'the outline of a predicament' in (A) refers to what is stated from line 1 to 6 (until "Such intellectual shift..."). And I assumed that you mean the predicament here is "With dominant theories quickly losing credibility as a result of flaws exposed through their application...". But I initially thought that the outline of a predicament refers to the entire first paragraph, the predicament being: "...can adversely affect the economic development of developing nations". If that were the case, then (A) would be highly attractive because line 10 - 15 can then be "factors leading up to (causing) the predicament are scrutinized (although factors might be problematic)); and the rest of the passage being "an example of the predicament". After learning that (A) is not correct, I came up with the following to explain why the outline of a predicament cannot refer to the entire first paragraph: if the predicament is the adverse effect on the development, then an outline of that predicament would have to be something about that (say, there are x, y, z adverse effects on the development). But what is offered in the beginning of the first paragraph is the cause of the predicament, not some information about the predicament; therefore, if I set the adverse effect as the predicament, then the first paragraph is not an outline of the predicament (the outline would only be lines 8 - 9), a fact that disqualifies (A) from being the correct answer to a structure question. Thus, your explanation which has set the P as line 4 - 5 and my explanation which has set the P as line 8 - 9 both fail to make (A) the correct answer.
Please let me know if my line of thought is correct. Thank you.

Harry

[Jon Denning]

Hi Harry - that's an excellent analysis! Nicely done!

I'd say that the first paragraph isn't cohesive enough—that is, contains two disparate ideas (dominant theories quickly losing credibility as well as the adverse effects of those shifts on developing nations)—to be described as "a predicament." So if the predicament is the constant theory changes we don't have the factors leading to that discussed and (A) is out; if the predicament is harm to developing nations we've overlooked the whole first half of the first paragraph and thus (A) is out once more.

This is something I love about the LSAT: wrong answers are defensibly wrong...sometimes for more than one reason, or even via multiple interpretations!

Strong work here!

[Legalistic]

Hello,

I'm having trouble fully understanding how and why 1E should be incorrect. I would discount 1E because I don't particularly find a worldview being explained. I think a worldview would be more of an explanation of a particular economic theory in this context, which I don't find happening. For example, if the initial passage was focused on let's say Market Economy, I would consider that being a particular worldview being explained. Instead, it describes the process of how economic policies are established (dominant theories losing credibility and other alternative theories taking hold), which I wouldn't say is a "worldview". It's the process involved in the eventual adoption of an economic system (which could be a worldview). Is it reasonable for me to be discounting 1E based on these thoughts? Could you give me a better approach on this, please.

I also tried paralleling "a particular worldview is explained" with the adverse effect the adoption of such economic systems can have on developing nations in practice. The shortcomings are discussed in lines 21-23. And an evaluation would be lines 23-27.

For further reference, from 1E, I'd want to understand what would an "evaluation" would generally consist of in a passage, if it's not what's mentioned in the passage already. I would consider lines 21-26 to be an evaluation of the shortcoming which is, the adverse effect of economic development policies on developing nations. In the book, it mentions that "the author does not evaluate these shortcomings. She merely explains them by virtue of an example". But, although she explains them by virtue of an example, she uses words such as "the IMF left those markets vulnerable to exploitation and predation", which to me seems like an evaluation of the shortcoming (adverse effect of economic policies on developing nations). Why couldn't have the example be an addition to the overall evaluation of the shortcoming. I mean, isn't that how evaluations usually work anyway? You take an occurrence/instance/happening and then evaluate how good/bad it's affects were in practice?

Your response is highly appreciated!

Thanks,
Legalistic

[Jon Denning]

Hi Legalistic - thanks for posting!

I think your suspicions of the word "worldview" are entirely correct, as that was the first thing in E that caught my eye as well, and reason enough to dismiss it! What's described in the first paragraph isn't a worldview, but rather just a straightforward statement about how policy makers tend to behave, and then a comment about the consequences of that behavior.

As for the "evaluation" part, that's a fairly broad word (depending on how you choose to define it), but generally I'd take it to mean either a deconstruction of what's behind some phenomenon—evaluating the causes, for example (the why? of it all)—or an analysis of the outcomes of that phenomenon: evaluating the impact or upsides/downsides of some event, for example. In both cases there tends to be a ranking or grading or at least some comparative metric involved, where the author's evaluation includes an opinion on a scale of good to bad, or ideal to disastrous, etc. So that's how I tend to think of the word "evaluate," and why I don't think it's a word that fits what we see in paragraph two; the second paragraph is simply a real-world example of the concern the author raises at the end of paragraph one, written to bolster the validity of the author's claim, but not a proper evaluation of that claim in terms of why it's true.

I hope that helps!