Woody Allen

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite0% picked this

   present an exception to the general thesis stated in the

   This is another example of the general thesis, not an exception to it.

   0%
2. B

   Opposite12% picked this

   qualify an assertion made in the

   This paragraph wants to substantiate an assertion, not qualify it. Also, since this answer means the same thing as (A), they would cancel each other out. To qualify is probably the single most misunderstood term on LSAT. People think its meaning is synonymous with substantiating / supporting / corroborating. But it has nothing to do with like "job qualifications". It's more like expressing a qualm. To qualify a claim is to present an exception or to restrict its scope ... in some way to backpedal from the original claim. Original claim: If a guy is tall, Wanda will date him. Qualified claim: If a guy is tall and not smelly, Wanda will date him. The original claim was stronger because it said that Wanda will date all tall guys. The qualified claim is weaker and narrower because it's only saying that Wanda will date non-smelly tall guys. It has carved out as an exception to the general rule that Wanda will date any tall guy (well, not necessarily the smelly ones). Original Assertion: Woody Allen throughout his career depicted artists as people deserving of mockery. Qualified Assertion: Woody Allen throughout his career, notwithstanding the anomalous film Manhattan, depicted artists as people deserving of mockery.

   12%
3. C

   Opposite: contrasted4% picked this

   provide an illustration that is contrasted to the illustration given in

   The 3rd paragraph is yet another example, so it is presented as a continuation of the 2nd paragraph / as a similar situation.

   4%
4. D

   Correct83% picked this

   provide additional support for a contention made in the

   Why this is right

   This is weird, since it would be more lovable to say that the 3rd paragraph provides additional support for the claim made in the 1st paragraph (that Allen's films are consistently peevish depictions of artists). But the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph is also a broad statement about Allen's films. Does the 3rd paragraph lend any support to the idea? Could we use the 3rd paragraph to support the idea that Allen might be portraying artists who document their private suffering and fob it off as art because he suffers from self-doubt that he is doing the same? The first sentence says that Manhattan "offers a denigratory take that is similar to" Stardust's. And the quote at the end is talking about one's private suffering (fear of death) being elevated to tragic heights (art?) To be honest, I find this a weird answer, because there's no great fit between a contention in the 2nd paragraph and what the 3rd is talking about, but it's the best available answer since it's the only one that comes close to saying that paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 are just two examples of the same thing. Maybe, LSAC thinks that the 3rd paragraph is supporting the contention made in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, that Stardust is "Allen's sourest portrait of artists before many". That's claiming that Allen made many sour portraits of artists, and the 3rd paragraph provides support for that since Manhattan is another sour (negative) portrait of an artist.

   Skill tested: Paragraph Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   83%
5. E

   Out of Scope: contention argued for1% picked this

   present a contention that will be argued for in the

   The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs are all just providing examples of the thesis at the end of the 1st paragraph. This answer choice is saying that we get a big conclusion in the 3rd that is then argued for in the 4th, but the 3rd paragraph doesn't really even have any broad author-opinion type contentions. It's a few sentences of detail about the movie Manhattan, which none of the 4th paragraph is talking about.

   1%