Reading comp PrepTest 116 · Section 1 · Question 19

Passage

Questions 14-21  .        Reader–response theory, a type of literary theory  . that arose in reaction to formalist literary criticism, Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Humanities


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Debate between reader-response theory and formalists; author’s criticism of formalists
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Reader-response theory proponents’ view:
      • The text alone has no meaning and only acquires meaning when readers interpret it; varying interpretations possible (first and second sentences)
    • Formalists’ view:
      • Study only the text; reader-response theory encourages fragmented views (third sentence)
    • Author’s view:
      • More than one theory can show how works acquire meaning, so the formalists’ approach is unnecessarily narrow (last sentence)
    • Author’s attitude: “no theory has a monopoly” (last sentence); “unnecessarily narrow” (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Formalists’ view and author’s rebuttal
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to the formalists
      • Formalism rests on rational, objective principles, while reader-response theory lacks standards and is subjective (first sentence)
    • Formalists’ view:
      • Author’s intended meaning may be hidden, but it can and should be found (third sentence)
    • Author’s view:
      • Literary works consist of signs/symbols, but a work is not a map, and criticism needs to make use of reader/text encounters (fourth through last sentences)
    • Author’s attitude: “indeed encoded in various signs and symbols that must be translated” (fourth sentence); “it is not a map” (fourth sentence); “invariably” (fifth sentence); “needed” (last sentence); “rich stock of meanings” (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on benefits of reader-response theory
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author’s view:
      • Reader interpretations have occurred long before reader-response theory articulated the position, and such interpretations can bring new depth and valuable interpretations to work (first and second sentences)
      • Although reader-response theory can “unfairly burden literature” with contemporary views, it adds additional insights and leads to “fluid and lively” discourse over old works (third and last sentences)
    • Author’s attitude: “uncover hitherto unnoticed dimensions of the text” (first sentence); “unfairly burdened literature of the past with contemporary ideologies” (third sentence); “legitimate additional insights and understandings continue to emerge” (third sentence); “legitimizes a wide range of perspectives” (last sentence); “fluid and lively forms of discourse” (last sentence)

Main Point: Despite the objection of formalists and the occasional unfair burdening of literature with contemporary morals, reader-response theory encourages important interaction between readers and text, allowing for new depth and lively discussion about the meanings of older works.

Key Lines?

Lines 6-12 - A new approach

Lines 12-17 - The old approach

Lines 17-20 - The author’s opinion on the old approach

Lines 21-24 - Proponents’ view of the old approach

Lines 41-44 - Benefits of the new theory, according to the author

Lines 58-62 - More benefits of the new theory, according to the author

Meta-Structure?

Old Approach/New Approach: The passage opens up by describing an approach to literary criticism that “arose in reaction to” another, suggesting that the passage is going to fall into the Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure. Throughout the rest of the passage, the downsides of the old approach are discussed (Lines 18-20; Line 35), and the benefits of the new approach are raised (Paragraph 3). In such a passage, the author’s opinion of the new approach generally constitutes the main point. Here, it’s important to note that the author makes some concessions to the argument against the new approach (see discussion below), so that needs to be reflected in the main point. However, the discussion of the benefits of the new approach shows that the author is largely in favor of it, leading to the main point we summarized above.

Last Thoughts?

It’s important to note that the author doesn’t argue in favor of reader-response theory at the end of Paragraph 1, but rather against the constraints of the formalists’ approach. The author could easily have followed that up by noting that reader-response theory is problematic and a third approach —or a combination of the first two — is needed. It’s not until the end of Paragraph 2, where the author calls for a method that incorporates the views of readers, that we can associate the author with the reader-response movement.

Question prompt

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

Credited answer: B

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

Question Type

Humanities

Strategy Overview

Review the author’s opinion of reader-response theory, determine weaknesses in that claim to anticipate how to weaken it, and select the answer choice that makes the claim less convincing

Answer Anticipation

We'll approach Weaken questions in Reading Comprehension in a very similar manner as we would in Logical Reasoning. We can review the excerpt from the passage, just like we'd carefully read an argument in LR. We’ll then interrogate the claim for any weaknesses, as the correct answer on both RC and LR will probably weaken the claim by exploiting a problem. Additionally, causation flaws are commonplace on Weaken questions in both RC and LR, so we should be especially mindful of those.In this case, we’re asked to weaken the author’s argument about reader-response theory. The entire passage was more or less the author’s opinion of reader-response theory, so we can base our anticipation of this question around the main point:“Despite the objection of formalists and the occasional unfair burdening of literature with contemporary morals, Reader-Response Theory provides for the important interaction between readers and text, allowing for new depth and lively discussion to be had about the meanings of older works.”Short version? Reader-response theory is a good approach to analyzing literature because it provides more valid insights into the text.This is a causal claim. The author thinks that reader-response theory creates varying interpretations of works that cause us to have a richer understanding of the works. The most common way to weaken a causal claim on the LSAT is by undermining the correlation. In this case, the correct answer might show other instances in which the cause occurs without the effect following. In this case, that might look like many readers coming up with conflicting interpretations of a text and that doesn’t lead to a better understanding of the text. This technique is often called "cause without the effect."Alternatively, the correct answer could show an effect produced without the supposed cause preceding it. In this case, that might involve showing that the that texts we generally understand better are the ones in which readers’ interpretations are not varied or based on readers’ individual perspectives. That would suggest that reader-response theory does not generally produce a better understanding. This technique is often called "effect without the cause."That said, many things could feasibly weaken the author’s argument about reader-response theory, so we should keep an open mind as we progress through the answer choices. We'll start by asking ourselves, "Does this weaken the author’s claim that reader-response theory produces a better understanding of the work?"

Answer choices

  1. A
    Reader–response theory is reflected Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this weaken the author’s claim that reader-response theory produces a better understanding of the work?

    Nope. This answer has good things to say about reader-response theory, so it aligns with the author’s view instead of undermining it.

  2. B
    Reader–response theory legitimizes conflicting Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) Does this weaken the author’s claim that reader-response theory produces a better understanding of the work?

    Yes! As expected, this fits the “cause without the effect” mold of answer choices that weaken causal claims in the passage.

    Indeed, the author argues that RRT leads to additional insights and lively forms of discourse that enhance our understanding of a work (Lines 55-62). If these conflicting interpretations collectively diminish the understanding of a work, then that runs counter to the author’s view that these interpretations add new depth to that understanding, making this the correct answer. We can justifiably select it and move on to the next question.

  3. C
    Reader–response theory fails to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this weaken the author’s claim that reader-response theory produces a better understanding of the work?

    No. This aligns with the author’s point — that reader-response theory provides “varying” and “legitimate additional” interpretations and insights rather than a unified view of the work’s meaning (Lines 11-12; Lines 52-55). That’s a good thing according to the author, even if the formalists disagree!

  4. D
    Reader–response theory claims that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this weaken the author’s claim that reader-response theory produces a better understanding of the work?

    Negative. This is a tenet of reader-response theory (Lines 7-11), so this doesn’t make the author’s support of that theory any less convincing.

  5. E
    Reader–response theory recognizes meanings Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this weaken the author’s claim that reader-response theory produces a better understanding of the work?

    No. Once again, this answer choice is aligned with the author’s views on reader-response theory. The author criticizes the formalists for focusing exclusively on the author’s intent and says that a method is needed that will take the views of readers into account (Lines 28-32; Lines 37-40) , so this answer aligns with the author’s argument.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 5%
  2. B Credited 82%
  3. C 3%
  4. D 3%
  5. E 6%

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 is C wrong? 3 replies

    Started by andreaskormusis

  • Answer Choice A 2 replies

    Started by ankita96

  • Help! 4 replies

    Started by jperkett

View all discussions Start a discussion