Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
Posts: 3
Joined: November 11th, 2018


by AJE770 Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:51 pm

Can someone please explain why B is correct and A is wrong. What is the confusing issue? Thanks!
User avatar
Thanks Received: 2902
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
Posts: 4202
Joined: April 01st, 2011

Re: Q5

by ohthatpatrick Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:44 pm

The time-honored tradition for RC questions that ask "The author said _____ in order to / primarily to is that the correct answer reinforces the bigger idea that is connected to the detail being asked about.

Most of the time, the correct answer sounds like it reinforces the previous sentence.

If I said:
Pets are great assets in times of tragedy. For example, my pet turtle Lebron was able to put things in perspective for me after all my poetry journals were destroyed in a thunderstorm.

And they asked:
The author brings up his turtle in order to ...

The correct answer isn't about poetry or thunderstorms. It's about the previous line. It would be something like ...
(A) to corroborate the value that household animals can have to people undergoing trying circumstances

If we go to the line being quoted here and look at the previous sentences, we see the author had just said
- the legal rationale for Shelley is problematic
- the rationale used the 14th, which only holds to state actors, not individuals

The author's question is reflecting why the rationale seems problematic. Shelley recognized that the 14th only applies to state actors, but it applied the 14th to racial covenants, which is about individual actors.

(A) Not quite. The author doesn't think the distinction between state and individual is incoherent. He thinks it's a clear distinction. He's confused why Shelley would apply a rule for individuals to a clearly distinct case, state actors. If anything, the author would complain that the Court did NOT apply the distinction; it blurred the line between state and individual.

(B) Sure this works. If Shelley thinks that the 14th only applies to individual actors, then how can it apply the 14th to state actors?

(C) The complaint is never that the Court didn't attend to the facts. It knew that racial covenants were individual. It knew that the 14th only applies to individual. It invented an attribution rationale in which "enforcement" of individual contracts forced a state action. That's not a failure to attend to facts. It's a failure to read the 14th amendment in a strict fashion. So it's more of a "failure to adhere to the letter of the law"

(D) This sounds weirdly accusatory. The author isn't impugning the motives of judges.

(E) The author isn't fighting the basis for the 14th. He's complaining about how it was interpreted / applied to the facts of this case.

Hope this helps.
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
Posts: 2
Joined: February 03rd, 2019

Re: Q5

by AdhityaM617 Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:16 pm

Hello! So this question type is my biggest weakness in RC, and no matter how many tests I have taken and reviewed, I continuously get them wrong. For question 5, I selected (A) as well. I understand the right answer to these "bookend" questions follow a pattern, where it reinforces the author's point stated in a previous idea, which is usually in the preceding sentences. My justification for (A) is that, even as you said, the court is blurring the lines between state actors and individuals by applying an amendment that is typically used to apply to state actors to private actors, which is mentioned in the previous sentences and also lends support to the thesis that the legal rationale for Shelley is problematic. Since this distinction falls apart, I confidently selected (A) as the answer because this was my prephrase/prediction. I thought the distinction was "incoherent" because now these lines are effectively blurred in its rationale, which is why the author is arguing that the rationale is problematic.

I admit I see the attractiveness of (B), and I kept it open upon the first pass. However, when in doubt I select the answer that matches my prephrase.

Please explain further why (A) is wrong, how (B) is correct, and how I can avoid this mistake in the future! How can a distinction be blurred and NOT incoherent at the same time?

I always look to the previous sentences and identify the main point well, but get lost in how specific lines are connecting to the aforementioned point. Thank you!!!