Reading comp PrepTest 132 · Section 3 · Question 6

Passage

Questions 1-7  .        The work of South African writer Ezekiel  . Mphahlele has confounded literary critics, especially  . those Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Humanities


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • An writer confounds critics; Author explains
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Critics - Mphahlele’s autobiography is too fictional; his fiction is too autobiographical
    • Author - Mphahlele doesn’t fit labels - he uses prose to advance social message

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Criticism of Mphahlele’s work; Mphahlele’s response; Author’s response
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Criticism - Even positive has negative subtext
    • Example - The Wanderers - Praised firsthand experiences (and other things), but others dismiss for autobiography
    • Mphahlele - Fictional relationship serves as beginning/end
    • Author - Mphahlele has a strong vision of the future “wonderfully articulated”
    • Critics balk (how do we get there?)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Mphahlele’s views on writing
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Mphahlele - Can’t write just fact or fiction - experiences pervade fiction, and maximizing social message changes facts
    • Mphahlele (Author) - Writing isn’t about classification but about transmitting ideas
    • Quote

Main Point: Those who criticize the works of Mphahlele for not clearly falling into autobiography or fiction don’t recognize that he writes to convey a social message and thus classifying him misses the point, as Mphahlele himself recognizes.

Key Lines?

Lines 1-4 - An opposing point

Lines 12-14 - More of the opposing view

Lines 16-17 - The Author’s view on Mphahlele

Lines 18-19 - More from critics

Lines 30-33 - Mphahlele defends his work

Lines 33-35 - The Author’s defense of Mphahlele’s works

Lines 46-51 - Mphahlele’s thoughts on writing

Lines 51-53 - Mphalele and the Author on writing

Meta-Structure?

Defending an Artist from Critics - One common Humanities Meta-Structure is Defending an Artist from Critics. In this type of passage, the Author highlights criticism of an artist and why that criticism is wrong. It’s important to track the view of the Critics, why the Author thinks they’re wrong, and what the artist thinks, if that’s present in the passage. Putting all of this together led us to the main point as we stated it above.

Last Thoughts?

A lot of this passage dealt with a split between autobiography and fiction. The Critics felt that there was a distinct line between the two, while the Author and Mphahlele believed that it could be broken down in service of conveying a social message. As such, we need to be careful when answering questions that we know from whose viewpoint it’s being asked, and either draw a distinction between fiction and autobiography if the Critics’ view is being asked about, or blur that distinction for questions about the Author’s or Mphahlele’s view.

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 the Author’s opinion statements on Mphahlele, then find an answer bringing up what she most values based on those statements

Answer Anticipation

We should be tagging clear statements of Authorial opinion as we read through the passage, so we can skim down what we noted in order to find her opinion.In Paragraph 1, the Author concludes with a statement about what Mphahlele does - manipulates different prose forms to communicate a social message. However, there’s no clear language here showing that the Author thinks this is particularly valuable, so we should keep looking.We noted Authorial opinion at the end of Paragraph 2. There, the Author claims that Mphahlele’s “greater concern” is his social vision which he “wonderfully articulates” through his vision of the future (Lines 33-37). That has a lot of positive opinion to it, so this is a potential answer.Paragraph 3 focuses on Mphahlele’s view, but the Author presents it in a way that shows she agrees with him. In particular, she hops into the middle of the sentence starting in Line 51 to agree with Mphahlele that writing is the “transmission of ideas,” and she clarifies this with a quote from Mphahlele which clarifies those ideas as social criticism. This is another clear statement of opinion.The statements of opinion in Paragraphs 2 and 3 overlap in that both discuss Mphahlele’s focus on social issues and criticism, so we should look for an answer bringing that topic up since the Author praises that aspect of his work multiple times.

Answer choices

  1. A
    his commitment to communicating Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) (Lines 33-37; Lines 51-58) The Author repeatedly praises Mphahlele’s focus on communicating a social message instead of the classification of his work. She calls his vision of the future that reflects his social vision “wonderfully articulate[d],” and she agrees that all writing should strive to communicate important social criticism. This answer reflects that praise, so it’s the correct answer.

  2. B
    his blending of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) (Lines 15-16) This answer is tricky, as the Author does argue that Mphahlele’s work doesn’t fit neatly into traditional categories such as “fiction” or “autobiography.” However, she goes on to say that this is in service of his “wonderfully articulate[d]” social vision and his focus on communicating important ideas of social criticism, so this answer doesn’t reflect something that she praises as particularly valuable - just something he does that critics misunderstand.

  3. C
    his ability to redefine Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (Lines 15-16) First, the Author doesn’t claim that Mphahlele has redefined these categories - just that he blends them. Second, as with (B), this isn’t the focus of her praise - rather, it’s what he does this blending in service of.

  4. D
    his emphasis on the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) (Lines 53-55) The Author praises Mphahlele’s focus on social criticism and communicating ideas, not on the details used to do so.

  5. E
    his plan for bringing Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Lines 38-40) The Author states that Mphahlele doesn’t provide a road map for bringing about his vision of the future, so this answer is contradicted by the passage.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A Credited 73%
  2. B 12%
  3. C 7%
  4. D 1%
  5. E 7%

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

View all discussions Start a discussion