This is a perfect example of the kind of literature that the MCAT assumes we learned in school, which many of us did not. This snippet is a very small part of a much larger work in which the driving theme is fighting injustice through non-violent civil disobedience. And yes, he DOES advocate that if the law is unjust, we SHOULD become lawbreakers. I think Thoreau would argue that nourishing the soul through philosophy is such an important human right that it WOULD be moral and ethical to refuse to pay the shoemaker in favor of reading philosophy. His rallying cry was, "Stop the machine," something echoed more than 100 years later by Ayn Rand in "Anthem" when she advocates people should become the monkey wrenches in the machine. Thoreau was NOT one to argue that working longer hours in order to pay off creditors was more ethical that reading philosophy. Quite the opposite. And yes, earlier in the essay he DOES imply that tradesmen, like the Mad Men of the 1960's, would lie, cheat, and steal in order to sell more products, in which case, it was probably true -- the shoemaker WAS robbing the student of philosophy.
I agree, but this is really what confuses me, the passage itself is raken out of context, I've faced a similar passage taken out of context, but i fail to entirely dissosiate from outside knowledge (and missed my questions there) On this passage I felt very conflicted but thinking about it from an outside view, there's no indication to sarcasm or the rally for the regular man being robbed of his time, I hate passages like this, but I'm hoping when I take the MCAT I can maintain a neutral outside position and read it properly :
Thanks for the analysis! I’m trying to fine tune my answer picking strategy and this was really helpful- taking it in slow-Mo. i just wish I had 25 minutes on each passage myself, maybe then I could get a 130 too 😂
I found that I'm too distracted by the details / difficult words and fail to see the bigger picture. I was thinking about how the author seems to just hate his readers while Sahil said that this is a commentary about culture. Wow learned so much xD
"Borrowed or stolen time, robbing your creditors of an hour" actually means that the reader is in debt (credit cards/loans) and should be workout an hourly wage to pay back instead of reading that one page to educate themselves. I imagine this is just supposed to be humor because that's probably what the audience in the lower class reading this page is thinking as they have a harder time focusing on studying when debts are in the back of their head.
For Q2, wouldn't answer choice B contradict with the passage? Paragraph 1 asserts that man should enjoy life; reasoning within that text, we can assume that the individual who owes money is passing time by reading this passage and could be enjoying their time doing so. They can enjoy their time, and they can also pay back the shoemaker. This is why I think answer choice C is better. Why is this reasoning incorrect? Edit: The phrases, "stolen time" and "robbing your creditors of an hour" are strong, but in analyzing the tone, it came off as humorous. This is because the author was speaking about valuing time, and then mentions the irony of time belonging to the creditors. In other words, the passage came off as an argument for the poor man to live his live, unfazed by the guidelines set or the constant worries and pressure.
Explanation for Q2 seems a little wishy-washy... I had chosen 'C' as opposed to 'B,' because I was unable to find evidence of the author claiming that the shoemaker (or any individual in a similar situation) shouldn't be reading his work in the first place. If anything, wouldn't a person like the shoemaker benefit in perspective by reading works like this? Would love a clarification on this. Thank you!
Thank you for your question, Smriti! This one is tricky because the distinction between a debtor repaying this hypothetical shoemaker after reading the passage vs. repaying the shoemaker instead of reading the passage seems minimal. However, the key is to look at the specific language used in the passage. The author uses the phrases, "stolen time" and "robbing your creditors of an hour" to indicate in the strongest possible terms that a debtor using their time for anything other than repaying their creditor is completely unjustifiable. Thus, the author believes that instead of reading the passage, the debtor should be repaying the creditor. This is a classic illustration of the importance of paying close attention to the author's tone in order to best understand their message. I hope this explanation was helpful!
I have to disagree with your reasoning about this essay. This essay is incredibly famous -- or at least used to be: It's Thoreau's "Lives of quiet desperation" essay. The last thing in the world Thoreau would have tried to imply is that the poor have no right to improve their lives or uplift their souls through the study of philosophy. What he's REALLY attacking is -- as you rightly point out -- our CULTURE, a culture that today we call "the Race Race." What Thoreau is advocating is stepping out of the race!! Screw trying to climb an Everest made of cinders. Sit down and read some philosophy and nourish yourself, and screw the new pair of shoes. Recapture what is really important, and stop killing yourselves for the stuff that really doesn't matter -- the $6,000 pair of shoes, the $500,000 wedding, the gold-plated chocolate cake. And yes, the poor need to be paid a living wage so that they, too, can elevate their lives by reading philosophy. When he uses words like "Robbing" and "Stealing," don't overlook the possibility that he's engaging in sarcasm. Irony was not invented by the stand-up comedians of the current millennium. Irony and sarcasm have been around at least since Cicero and Cato and Diogenes.
This is a perfect example of the kind of literature that the MCAT assumes we learned in school, which many of us did not. This snippet is a very small part of a much larger work in which the driving theme is fighting injustice through non-violent civil disobedience. And yes, he DOES advocate that if the law is unjust, we SHOULD become lawbreakers. I think Thoreau would argue that nourishing the soul through philosophy is such an important human right that it WOULD be moral and ethical to refuse to pay the shoemaker in favor of reading philosophy. His rallying cry was, "Stop the machine," something echoed more than 100 years later by Ayn Rand in "Anthem" when she advocates people should become the monkey wrenches in the machine. Thoreau was NOT one to argue that working longer hours in order to pay off creditors was more ethical that reading philosophy. Quite the opposite. And yes, earlier in the essay he DOES imply that tradesmen, like the Mad Men of the 1960's, would lie, cheat, and steal in order to sell more products, in which case, it was probably true -- the shoemaker WAS robbing the student of philosophy.
I agree, but this is really what confuses me, the passage itself is raken out of context, I've faced a similar passage taken out of context, but i fail to entirely dissosiate from outside knowledge (and missed my questions there)
On this passage I felt very conflicted but thinking about it from an outside view, there's no indication to sarcasm or the rally for the regular man being robbed of his time, I hate passages like this, but I'm hoping when I take the MCAT I can maintain a neutral outside position and read it properly :
@@AJ-tm2vd It must be so difficult to have that outside POV on these passages and lose points because of it!
Thanks for the analysis! I’m trying to fine tune my answer picking strategy and this was really helpful- taking it in slow-Mo. i just wish I had 25 minutes on each passage myself, maybe then I could get a 130 too 😂
This is amazing! I would really appreciate more CARS videos, I think they're definitely the toughest section on the MCAT for many.
I found that I'm too distracted by the details / difficult words and fail to see the bigger picture. I was thinking about how the author seems to just hate his readers while Sahil said that this is a commentary about culture. Wow learned so much xD
Noted!
Totally hear you! The ideas and concepts matter most. Glad you're developing that insight.
The twin to this essay is Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables."
This was super helpful!! I look forward to more CARS walkthrough videos :)
I really enjoyed your analysis of the passage and how you tackled the questions. This is a weak section for me that i hope to improve in. Thanks
Thanks, Daniel! Stay tuned for MCAT practice passage videos :)
Thank you!!! Please do more if time permits!
Happy you enjoyed the video. :)
With this paragraph summary strategy, roughly how much total time should be spent reading the passage and writing the summaries?
"Borrowed or stolen time, robbing your creditors of an hour" actually means that the reader is in debt (credit cards/loans) and should be workout an hourly wage to pay back instead of reading that one page to educate themselves.
I imagine this is just supposed to be humor because that's probably what the audience in the lower class reading this page is thinking as they have a harder time focusing on studying when debts are in the back of their head.
For Q2, wouldn't answer choice B contradict with the passage? Paragraph 1 asserts that man should enjoy life; reasoning within that text, we can assume that the individual who owes money is passing time by reading this passage and could be enjoying their time doing so. They can enjoy their time, and they can also pay back the shoemaker. This is why I think answer choice C is better. Why is this reasoning incorrect? Edit: The phrases, "stolen time" and "robbing your creditors of an hour" are strong, but in analyzing the tone, it came off as humorous. This is because the author was speaking about valuing time, and then mentions the irony of time belonging to the creditors. In other words, the passage came off as an argument for the poor man to live his live, unfazed by the guidelines set or the constant worries and pressure.
Hi, could you do more CARS walkthroughs practice passage
We'll add it to the list!
Explanation for Q2 seems a little wishy-washy... I had chosen 'C' as opposed to 'B,' because I was unable to find evidence of the author claiming that the shoemaker (or any individual in a similar situation) shouldn't be reading his work in the first place. If anything, wouldn't a person like the shoemaker benefit in perspective by reading works like this? Would love a clarification on this. Thank you!
Thank you for your question, Smriti! This one is tricky because the distinction between a debtor repaying this hypothetical shoemaker after reading the passage vs. repaying the shoemaker instead of reading the passage seems minimal. However, the key is to look at the specific language used in the passage. The author uses the phrases, "stolen time" and "robbing your creditors of an hour" to indicate in the strongest possible terms that a debtor using their time for anything other than repaying their creditor is completely unjustifiable. Thus, the author believes that instead of reading the passage, the debtor should be repaying the creditor. This is a classic illustration of the importance of paying close attention to the author's tone in order to best understand their message. I hope this explanation was helpful!
I have to disagree with your reasoning about this essay. This essay is incredibly famous -- or at least used to be: It's Thoreau's "Lives of quiet desperation" essay. The last thing in the world Thoreau would have tried to imply is that the poor have no right to improve their lives or uplift their souls through the study of philosophy. What he's REALLY attacking is -- as you rightly point out -- our CULTURE, a culture that today we call "the Race Race." What Thoreau is advocating is stepping out of the race!! Screw trying to climb an Everest made of cinders. Sit down and read some philosophy and nourish yourself, and screw the new pair of shoes. Recapture what is really important, and stop killing yourselves for the stuff that really doesn't matter -- the $6,000 pair of shoes, the $500,000 wedding, the gold-plated chocolate cake. And yes, the poor need to be paid a living wage so that they, too, can elevate their lives by reading philosophy. When he uses words like "Robbing" and "Stealing," don't overlook the possibility that he's engaging in sarcasm. Irony was not invented by the stand-up comedians of the current millennium. Irony and sarcasm have been around at least since Cicero and Cato and Diogenes.
Reasoning within the text, not outside of it.