Reading comp PrepTest 123 · Section 1 · Question 21

Topic: Social Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Two criticisms of philanthropy introduced; first criticism described
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition of “philanthropy”:
    • Offering private resources for humanitarian purposes
    • Philanthropy peaked in Victorian England (late 19th c)
  • List of two modern criticisms
    • Item 1: Earlier criticism — much philanthropy became obsolete because industrialism problems were too big to solve privately (needed legislative action)
  • Example of a problem that philanthropy couldn’t solve, according to critics:
    • Unemployment

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Second criticism described
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • List of two modern criticisms
    • Item 2: More recent criticism — much philanthropy is self-serving, to flaunt wealth and maintain control of workers (“social control” thesis) by promoting work ethic values

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author: a flawed assumption of both criticisms
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Modern critics view:
    • Victorian philanthropy was “amateurish” or “inadequate”
  • Author’s view:
    • The Modern critics' assumption is evidence of the “Whig fallacy” — that the past is an inferior prelude to the present
  • Author’s attitude: “assumption is typical of the ‘Whig fallacy’” (line 40)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author: Victorians were aware that philanthropy could be condescending but were also skeptical of state-managed charity
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author’s view:
    • Victorians knew of these charges/criticisms, but “put their money where their mouths were” and still tried to fix social problems
  • Author’s attitude: “patronizes” (line 49); “were in fact well aware” (line 50); “were equally well aware of the potential dangers of state-managed charity” (lines 51-53); “perhaps condescending to the poor” (lines 53-54); “put their money where their mouths were, and gave of their careers and lives as well” (lines 55-56)

Main Point: Modern critics have claimed that Victorian philanthropy was either inadequate or self-serving, but this view is based on a common, flawed assumption and overlooks that the Victorians were aware of these potential criticisms but attempted to help the poor anyway.

Lines 6-8 - The earlier criticism

Lines 16-19 - The more recent criticism

Lines 39-42 - The author’s evaluation of the assumption underlying the criticisms

Lines 49-56 - The author’s opinion on the criticism

Rebutting Critics: This passage utilizes a Rebutting Critics Meta-Structure. In such a passage, the author addresses critics’ views and shows why they’re wrong. In this passage, the author introduces and explores the criticisms leveled by modern critics who have leveled two major criticisms of Victorian philanthropy. Beginning in Paragraph 3, the author rebuts these critics, arguing that these critics commit a common logical fallacy and overlook Victorian philanthropists’ self-awareness. 

In a Rebutting Critics passage, the author’s defense is typically the main point. We’ve reflected that in our summary of the main point, as written above.

It’s important to keep the viewpoints here straight, especially as the passage shifts from the two criticisms to the author’s opinion of them. The critics are introduced in Lines 4-6, where they’re lumped together as “modern commentators” making two major criticisms of Victorian philanthropy. While those two criticisms are referred to as the “earlier” and “more recent,” they’re both criticisms that are attributed to modern commentators. As such, when the author pivots to their defense in Paragraph 3, the author refers to broader group of modern commentators that leveled both criticisms. So while the author splits up the criticisms in the earlier paragraphs, the author lumps them back together when rebutting their views. Let’s be sure to keep that clear as we work through the questions.