PrepTest 112, Section 4, Question 21
Tina: For centuries oceans and human eccentricity have(45 more words not shown)
Tina's and Sergio's statements lend(16 more words not shown)
- AEccentric humans were(7 more words not shown)
- BOceans have always(6 more words not shown)
- CThe linkage between(13 more words not shown)
- DPeople have never(8 more words not shown)
- EThe linkage between(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Did people make that connection before the ships were used as asylums?
Tina is offering an origin story: oceans became associated with eccentric, or unconventional, people because ships were used to confine socially undesirable people during the Renaissance. But suppose we found an ancient Greek writer making that association centuries earlier. That would be a problem for Tina's explanation. A later practice couldn't have started a connection people were already making.
Sergio's response goes in that direction. He says oceans have always seemed mysterious and unpredictable, and people have invariably associated those qualities with eccentricity. His explanation doesn't need the Renaissance practice. The shared qualities would account for the connection before those ships came along.
What we’re looking for
For the disagreement question, I'd start with why people connect oceans and eccentricity. Tina credits the ships; Sergio says the connection comes from qualities people have always associated with both. As we compare the answers, we need a statement on which their explanations point in opposite directions, not just a topic one speaker mentions.
Working the answers
- A
Tina's explanation connects the asylum ships with the association between oceans and eccentric people. Sergio doesn't dispute who was considered undesirable during the Renaissance. He disputes the proposed explanation for the association. We don't have opposing positions on A.
- B
Sergio clearly accepts this. But Tina doesn't tell us whether oceans have always seemed mysterious and unpredictable. She discusses when and why they became linked specifically with human eccentricity. She could accept B while disputing Sergio's use of those qualities to explain the linkage. Don't supply her disagreement just because Sergio says it.
- C
This reverses Tina's explanation. She suggests that using ships as asylums caused the association between oceans and eccentricity. C says the association caused the use of ships as asylums. Those are different directions, and the speakers don't offer opposing positions on C's claim.
- D
Both accounts recognize a connection between oceans and eccentricity; the dispute is how to explain it. Sergio explicitly identifies qualities people associate with both. A statement denying any shared qualities doesn't capture their disagreement.
- ECorrect
This expresses the timing difference behind their explanations. If the Renaissance practice started the linkage, as Tina suggests, the linkage didn't already exist before that practice. Sergio's “always” and “invariably” point the other way: the association was already there.
We don't have to establish whose history is right. The question asks what their statements most support as a disagreement. E gets at the conflict between a Renaissance origin and a connection that predates the Renaissance.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.