Reading comp PrepTest 115 · Section 1 · Question 18

Passage

Questions 13-20  .        Donna Haraway's Primate Visions is the most  . ambitious book on the history of science yet Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Social Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's conclusion (Haraway's primatology book most ambitious feminist science history book)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparisons, according to the author:
      • Haraway's book is a more ambitious feminist science history than any other book to date (first sentence)
      • Primates seem like us, so Haraway can use them to make conscious and unconscious projections of her beliefs about nature and culture (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "the most ambitious" (first sentence), "not only" (first sentence), "particularly apt vehicle" (last sentence), "they provide ready material" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's support (Haraway argues the division between knower/object is masculine and colonial)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • A distinction is drawn between the "traditional" division in scientific inquiry (between knower —scientist/historian — and object — nature/history) and Haraway's approach (miscellaneous human actors & creatures contribute to the knowledge of nature, which isn't singular) (first, fourth, and last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "most radical departure" (first sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's support (Haraway's fragmented, unique writing style reflects her views)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • A distinction is drawn between "traditional history" writing and Haraway's fragmented approach (third sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "iconoclastic" (first sentence), "unorthodox" (first sentence), "will not succumb" (second sentence), "fragmented" (third sentence), "familiar enough" (third sentence), "rarely been but into practice" (third sentence), "complex alternative" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's support (Haraway ignores distinction between scientific theory/practice and social issues/beliefs)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • A distinction is drawn between "internal" scientific issues and "external" scientific issues (second sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "equally innovative" (first sentence), "difficult to set aside" (second sentence), "simply ignores it" (third sentence), "one must shed a great many assumptions" (last sentence)

Main Point: By challenging traditional assumptions of science and adopting a unique writing style, Donna Haraway's Primate Vision is an innovative work of primatology and the most ambitious book on the history of science written from a feminist perspective.

Meta-Structure?

Innovative Subject: This passage adopts the Innovative [Subject] Meta-Structure.* This structure is usually reserved for passages about artists but can occasionally appear in passages about scientists, historians, philosophers, and others. In this case, we could call this an "Innovative Scientist" passage, as it's about a primatologist with some ambitious, unconventional ideas.

When a passage falls into the Innovative [Subject] Meta-Structure, the main point focuses on that innovation, as reflected in our main point above. Further, it's important to track whether and the extent to which the author approves of these innovations. In this passage, the author adopts a tone that suggests that the author truly admires Haraway's innovations, referring to her book as "the most ambitious book on the history of science yet written from a feminist perspective" (P1, S1), her writing style as a "complex alternative" to the traditional (P3, S4), and her analysis as "innovative" (P4, S1). The author does use some words that can have a neutral or even negative connotation, like "iconoclastic" (P3, S1) and "unorthodox" (P3, S1), and does make a concession that Haraway's writings could be considered by the more traditionally minded to be "distracting … bewildering … digressive" (P4, S4). However, on balance, the author seems to approve of Haraway's work.

*As is often the case with Innovative Subject passages, you could also reasonably call this passage an Old Approach/New Approach passage, characterizing Haraway's approach as the "new approach."

Comparison: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is the comparison. As is often the case for passages that utilize the Innovative [Subject] Meta-Structure, the subject's innovations are frequently distinguished from the conventional approaches. The author distinguishes Haraway's approach from the traditional division between "active knower" and "passive object" in the second paragraph, distinguishes Haraway's writing style from the traditional style in the third paragraph, and distinguishes Haraway's topics from the traditional focus of scientific studies in the last paragraph. We should expect several questions about these.

Last Thoughts?The author uses many words and phrases that convey authorial opinions, so expect several questions about the author's attitude.

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Humanities

Strategy Overview

Review notes on "traditional history" and re-read relevant part of the passage, if necessary, to anticipate key features of that concept

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us to identify an example that illustrates "traditional history." To answer this, we simply have to use our notes or re-read the relevant part of the passage to review the "traditional history" and find the answer choice that presents a new situation that exemplifies the key characteristics of what we reviewed. The correct answer choice will likely present new information, so we shouldn't eliminate anything that seems unfamiliar. We should only eliminate answer choices that do not include key elements of "traditional history."The "traditional history" referenced is unusually well-defined by the passage for an Application question: this is a history that is either "strictly narrative or narrative with emphasis on a causal argument" (P3, S4). This type of history is also contrasted with Haraway's approach, which is fragmented and full of "distinct voices that will not succumb to a master narrative" (P3, S2). And, of course, this passage is about the history of science, specifically, so the correct answer will relate to that topic. From this, we can infer a few key features we should look for in the answer choices: a single, cohesive narrative; an emphasis on cause and effect; a scientific topic of historical note.

Answer choices

  1. A
    a chronological recounting of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this answer choice describe a single, cohesive narrative, an emphasis on cause and effect, and a scientific topic of historical note?

    Yes. This has all the features the third paragraph told us to look for. The "chronological recounting" is a single, cohesive narrative that stands in stark contrast to the fragmentary approach of our Innovative Subject. The special attention "paid to the circumstances that led to [Curie's] discovery of radium" means this narrative emphasizes cause and effect. And, of course, Marie Curie is a person of note in the history of science. We can justifiably select (A) and advance to the next question.

  2. B
    a television series that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice describe a single, cohesive narrative, an emphasis on cause and effect, and a scientific topic of historical note?

    Nope. This doesn't deal with the history of science at all, as it is about a prediction of the future, which is disqualifying. Moreover, it's not clear whether this dramatization is a single, cohesive narrative or not.

  3. C
    the transcript of a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice describe a single, cohesive narrative, an emphasis on cause and effect, and a scientific topic of historical note?

    No. The multiple voices and lack of resolution depicted in this seem more akin to Haraway's fragmentary approach (P3, S2) and less like the traditional approach this question stem asks about.

  4. D
    a newspaper editorial written Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice describe a single, cohesive narrative, an emphasis on cause and effect, and a scientific topic of historical note?

    No. This is an editorial intended to persuade people, not a historical account of science, and is thus topically inapposite to the "traditional history" mentioned in the third paragraph.

  5. E
    detailed mathematical notes recording Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice describe a single, cohesive narrative, an emphasis on cause and effect, and a scientific topic of historical note?

    Negative. Like (B) and (D), this has little to do with the history of science at all, much less a narrative of any kind.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A Credited 64%
  2. B 7%
  3. C 12%
  4. D 6%
  5. E 11%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

  • Why A and not D? 2 replies

    Started by Alec

  • Why D? 1 reply

    Started by a42

View all discussions Start a discussion