Reading comp PrepTest 142 · Section 3 · Question 25

Passage SummaryTopic: Social Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • A traditional view, a view challenging that, and the Author's opinion of the latter are offered
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Garcia (and traditional implied) Mexican American Generation political activists (1930-1960) were more radical and politically diverse than previously thought
  • Author - Garcia's evidence is persuasive that they anticipated reforms of "more militant Chicanos"
  • Author - Garcia's study has two flaws

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author - Garcia's study has two flaws
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Evidence for political diversity not consistent
  • Ex - Debate over assimilation (League of United Latin American Citizens) versus cultural maintenance (Congress of Spanish-Speaking People)
  • Garcia - The differences were insignificant - their focus was liberal reform
  • Author - No, this was an intense debate, not consensus

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Flaw 2 - Activists might not have been representative
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Trend - By 1930, percentage of Mexican American population born in US had gone up
  • Garcia - They were acculturated and more politically active, influenced by discrimination and WWII, and wanted full civil rights
  • Author - This assumes the trend resulted in more politically active people, but factors in ethnic consciousness mean this is a bad assumption

Main Point:
Garcia's evidence is persuasive that the Mexican American Generation anticipated the Chicano reforms, but his argument that they were more radical and politically diverse than previously thought has two flaws.

Key Lines:
Lines 7-10 - The Author concedes an accuracy in Garcia's argument
Lines 10-11 - The Author brings up two flaws in Garcia's thesis, showing her opinion and previewing the passage's structure
Lines 12-15 - The first flaw is defined
Lines 30-36 - The Author highlights the main point of her rebuttal to this flaw
Lines 37-40 - The second flaw is defined
Lines 51-52 - The Author's rebuttal is stated
Lines 57-60 - The Author highlights an assumption of Garcia's argument

Meta-Structure:
Traditional View/New View - The Author brings up Garcia's argument, which states that the Mexican American Generation was "more radical and politically diverse" than previously thought. So there's a traditional view that is being challenged by a new view. Normally, the Author is in favor of the new view, or at least neutral, but here . . .

Rebuttal - The Author actually rebuts Garcia's view, highlighting two flaws in it.

Last Thoughts:
It's going to be really important that we understand the two flaws as highlighted by the Author, so let's make sure we understand them.

The first flaw is that Garcia's evidence of political diversity is not consistent. So we need to know where the contradiction in it is. What's inconsistent about it? Well, on the one hand, he's arguing that there were a lot of different viewpoints—after all, that's what political diversity is. However, Garcia also argues that the differences were "insignificant" (Lines 27-28). He can't have it both ways—either these differences are significant and thus show that there was political diversity in the Mexican American Generation, or the differences are insignificant.

The second flaw comes down to an assumption the Author points out in Garcia's argument—he assumes that "an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase in the ethnic Mexican population's activism" (Lines 57-60). However, there's no evidence this is true, and the Author brings up a number of factors that could prevent it from being true.

So the first criticism shows that Garcia treats differences as both significant and insignificant, highlighting an inconsistency; and that he assumes a representativeness that isn't established.