Reading comp PrepTest 114 · Section 3 · Question 15

(A) Does this answer choice match the main point we anticipated ("Philip Abrams proposes a new approach to historical sociology that relies on the concept of ‘structuring,' namely the understanding that individuals whose actions shape history are themselves products of historical social influences, or ‘contingencies'")?

No. This answer choice fails to conform to our anticipation. in multiple ways. First, it asserts that Abrams thinks "historical sociology" is an entity that can accept or reject the views of those who practice it. This is a strange concept that is not discussed in our anticipation. 

Second, it states that sociologists are aware of Abrams's concept of "structuring" and have discounted it as a method of analyzing the interactions between people and history. Our anticipation didn't mention whether any other sociologists are aware of Abrams's theory or reacting to it in any way. 

For these reasons, we can cross off (A).

(B) Does this answer choice match the main point we anticipated ("Philip Abrams proposes a new approach to historical sociology that relies on the concept of ‘structuring,' namely the understanding that individuals whose actions shape history are themselves products of historical social influences, or ‘contingencies'")?

No. This answer choice mischaracterizes Abrams's argument. Although the claim that history influences the social contingencies that affect individuals is accurate (P2 S3), it's only one-half of Abrams's argument about historical structuring. The other half asserts that individuals also influence society. We could eliminate (B) simply because it's an incomplete rendering of Abrams's argument.

Moreover, the first phrase of the answer choice asserts that sociologists disagree with Abrams's belief. Is that something that's in our anticipation? Nope. This is yet another reason to cross off (B).

(C) Does this answer choice match the main point we anticipated ("Philip Abrams proposes a new approach to historical sociology that relies on the concept of ‘structuring,' namely the understanding that individuals whose actions shape history are themselves products of historical social influences, or ‘contingencies'")?

No. There are several problems with this answer choice as well. Let's break this answer choice down as we did before.

The first phrase in the answer choice says that Abrams argues historical sociology demonstrates that social structures influence and are influenced by events. Is this what our anticipation says? No. The passage is almost entirely concerned with the interaction between social structures and individual agency. Events are presented as points at which historical sociologists can analyze the interaction between social systems and individuals (P3, S2-S3). But, events are not presented as things that can have their own interactions with social structures. This is the first problem with the answer choice: it connects two concepts from the passage in a way that the passage never does.

The next part of the answer choice implies that sociologists believe that social structures do not influence and are not influenced by the events of history. Is this something the passage ever said? No. The passage never linked events and social structures in the way presented in the answer choice, and it certainly never said sociologists believed the opposite of this argument.

(D) Does this answer choice match the main point we anticipated ("Philip Abrams proposes a new approach to historical sociology that relies on the concept of ‘structuring,' namely the understanding that individuals whose actions shape history are themselves products of historical social influences, or ‘contingencies'")?

This doesn't sound exactly like our anticipation, but it's a more general way of presenting what we understood to be the passage's main point. Still, many test-takers — even those who understand the passage's main point — shy away from this answer choice. One reason so many test-takers are hesitant to select (D) is that it brings up the concept of resolution or unity. It states that Abrams unifies two approaches sociologists take and applies this combination to studying history.

But, is this an accurate way of characterizing Abrams's argument? We can refer back to the first paragraph (or our note for the first paragraph) if necessary. There, the author points out that Abrams considers the old approach to historical sociology to be lopsided and that his model for approaching the discipline represents a balance between one approach and the other (P1, S1-S2). Only by recognizing that society and individuals act upon and are acted upon by each other simultaneously, Abrams argues, can historical sociologists move beyond the imbalance that has plagued the discipline (P1, S2). So Abrams does, in effect, bring the two approaches together into a unified methodology that the author lays out for us as we move through the passage.

So, it's entirely accurate to say that Abrams's version of historical sociology unites two approaches to the study of society's formation. After some careful thought and review, we can select (D) and advance to the following quesiton.

(E) Does this answer choice match the main point we anticipated ("Philip Abrams proposes a new approach to historical sociology that relies on the concept of ‘structuring,' namely the understanding that individuals whose actions shape history are themselves products of historical social influences, or ‘contingencies'")?

No. This answer choice mentions the shortcomings of traditional historical methods, something never touched on in our anticipation or the passage writ large.

Moreover, this answer choice makes it seem like Abrams's innovation is fusing history and sociology. That's not accurate. Although Abrams operates within historical sociology, the passage frames his innovation as combining two sociological approaches: one that focuses on society's effect on the individual and another that focuses on individuals' effect on society.