Highlight the author’s conclusions:

p3: 
the laws governing the transformation of language are not like the laws of physics.

***

p1 is all background, although you’re anticipating that the author is going to take a side in this incredibly fascinating debate about grammar. But in this paragraph all the support is put into the mouths of the “descriptivists”.

p2 outlines “the two main objections of descriptivists” but the author still isn’t giving support for either side.

p3 finally brings in a conclusion the author then gives support for. But the bit about the “egalitarian objection” is only attributed to the “prescriptivists”. We can probably guess the author would agree, but we don’t see the author actually give support for that part.

Map the wording of the answers to the reference in the prompt, or to the author’s conclusions:

6. The passage says that the aim of descriptivist grammarians is to

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. Usually “the aim” of something is mentioned in the background info about it. Expect the answer to map to something in the first paragraph.

(A) criticize…

Quite the opposite! This was the group that was “content to describe the way language is actually used”.

(B) observe how language is actually used

Boom! This is basically the same as the reference I used to eliminate (A). You want to feel good picking this and moving on.

(C) facilitate communication…

An easy assumption to make, but there’s no reference in the text that uses that wording or anything meaning the same thing.

(D) slow the pace of linguistic change

Again, these are the “content” grammar people, they’re not trying to force anything about how language changes.

(E) influence laws…

Nope. These are the “descriptivists”, not the activists.

(B) is the correct answer.

7. The author’s defense of the prescriptivist approach…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. They’re asking about the author’s “defense”, meaning the support they gave right after the conclusion. Expect the answer to map to “Language depends on choices made by individuals, who are subject to persuasion.”

(A) …typically develop rules very similar to…

This doesn’t sound like or connect to the “choices made by individuals…” thing, so let’s eliminate it without thinking more deeply about what the hell it means.

(B) …lifelong adherence…

Okay, this wording maps nicely to someone who’s “subject to persuasion”. They’re sticking to what they were taught as kids for their whole lives. I don’t really love it, but I can’t eliminate it.

(C) …a similar range of variation in language use.

Cool story, but how does this connect to the reference in the passage? I agree, it doesn’t. Nothing about “choices” or “persuasion” here.

(D) …if they had little prior instruction in correct usage.

This is really changing the subject, since we can’t judge the “subject to persuasion” thing the author talks about if “they had little prior instruction”. That’s the test telling you this one is safe to get away from.

(E) …linguistic practices were quite uniform despite large differences…

This would actually support language having rules “like the laws of physics”. It’s like saying gravity’s gravity no matter where you grew up. This doesn’t map at all to the reference in the passage.

(B) is the correct answer.

8. The passage most strongly suggests that the author would agree with which one of the following statements?

Map the answers to the author’s conclusions. Anything that sounds like pushback against the descriptivists or agreement with the prescriptivists will work. I promise you’ll be done with these silly ass names of grammar fighters very soon.

(A) …reveals the need for a new approach…

Nope. The author only talks about these two groups, without ever getting into combining them together into a “new” thing.

(B) …the etymologies of words…

Whoa, that’s way too specific. Yes it was all about grammar, but the author never talked about details like the individual histories of words. You have no idea if they would agree with this or not.

(C) Moral considerations should ultimately have no bearing…

Give me a break. This is grammar we’re talking about. Just because it got a little political, don’t read “moral considerations” into it. Also, you know “no bearing” is too strong unless an author is explicitly that extreme about it.

(D) Scientific methods can contribute nothing…

Whoa, too strong. Our author never shared a take that hot. LSAT authors very rarely do.

(E) …will sometimes make linguistic choices in response to persuasion.

Two points for one reference! This maps perfectly to the same support statement that answered 7.

(E) is the correct answer.

9. The author most likely uses the phrase…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. You know the author meant there’s no evidence for the “would have prevailed without their assistance” thing that came right before.

(A) …a greater measure of intellectual commitment…

There was definitely no comparison of levels of “intellectual commitment”. Haha nice try.

(B) rely on theory rather than observation…

This is a tough one to knock out. I see this surviving the first round of elimination for a lot of people. But you’re a lawyer now. A “theory” is not just a guess or a hypothesis. It’s almost a fact, not proven but backed up by all known evidence. The author doesn’t mention any theory of descriptivism or describe their argument in those terms at all.

(C) …despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary

Get out of here. The author may have disagreed but this is way too strong, and there’s no wording like “overwhelming” anywhere.

(D) have no proof…

Boom! Does this mean exactly the same thing as an “article of faith”? Yes! Are we done here? I think so.

(E) …that other researchers have discredited.

Be careful, disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean they’ve been “discredited.” That would mean the author said the descriptivists’ argument had been completely disproven.

(D) is the correct answer.

10. The passage indicates that which one of the following views is held by prescriptivists?

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. Usually prompts like this have answers that map to the early background, like where the prescriptivists were first introduced.

(A) …should be regarded as healthy…

Definitely not. This is the group that thinks change means “falling into disarray.”

(B) …is not a scientific undertaking.

Science didn’t actually get mentioned ’til later, and we never got an explicit take on that from the prescriptivists. It was the descriptos whose argument made the comparison to science.

(C) A word’s origins should inform its current usage.

This maps to the first reference to prescriptivists about wanting to “distinguish correct from incorrect”. But the more direct proof comes from the prescriptivists argument about “data” later in the paragraph. “A word’s origins” maps to “the Latin noun ‘datum’” pretty nicely.

(D) Laws do not govern…

Hmm, if anything the “prescriptivists” are going to disagree with this, but in any case this is not what “the passage indicates” anywhere.

(E) Morality is not at issue…

There’s only a passing mention of something being “immoral” in there. So there’s definitely nothing this really sounds like.

(C) is the correct answer.

11. The passage provides the most support for inferring which one of the following?

Map the answers to the author’s conclusions or a reference in the prompt. This prompt is totally open-ended, so you may not know which path will work better until you see the answers. Typically, wide open prompts like this have really general answers that would be almost impossible to deny.

(A) …increased as descriptivism has gained more widespread acceptance.

The author doesn’t get into who’s more popular or more widely accepted at all.

(B) …only in cases in which the prescription takes word origins into account.

What? This is way, way too specific. We didn’t get any rules like this with exceptions carved out in the passage. Not from either side.

(C) …unavoidably ambiguous.

There’s no wording in the passage to match “ambiguous”, let alone a super strong modifier like “unavoidably”.

(D) …the English language is constantly changing.

This is exactly the kind of soft, general, impossible-to-disagree-with answer that we expect to have “the most support for inferring”. Love this.

(E) …investigations show that the regulation is being followed.

Hahaha an actual reference to grammar police! Thanks for the laugh LSAT, we all needed that. This sounds nothing like anything stated anywhere in the passage.

(D) is the correct answer.

12. The passage most strongly suggests that prescriptivists…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. The prescriptos views of the descriptos came in right at the end. So expect the right answer to map to “In response to the egalitarian objection…”

(A) …motivated more by…

The author doesn’t compare the relative motivations of anyone in the passage.

(B) …adhere to the scientific method less rigorously…

These aren’t experimental scientists, they’re “grammarians”. No one is adhering to or diverging from “scientific method” in this passage.

(C) …their own approach may undermine egalitarian ideals.

Unfortunately this requires just a bit of reasoning. The reference in the passage mentions “the importance of standard language usage for the free exchange of ideas”. The implication is that descriptivists, by not supporting “standard language usage”, could “undermine” themselves. They expect us to agree that “egalitarian ideals” refers to “the free exchange of ideas”.

(D) …generally unaware of the etymologies of words…

The argument doesn’t say anything about anyone’s lack of awareness of ignorance.

(E) …empirical observations generally support…

There are no specific “observations” used in the passage to “support” either side. It’s all just reasoning, with no experiments or surveys or anything like that.

(E) is the correct answer.