Reading comp PrepTest 142 · Section 3 · Question 26
Passage
Questions 22-27 This passage is adapted from a review of a 1991 book. . In a recent study, Mario Garcia
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Social Science
Paragraph 1
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.
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 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 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
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.
Question prompt
The author of the
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: D
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Social Science
Answer choices
-
Awhether or not one Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 57-60) This can be a tempting answer because it does reflect something the Author states! However, the Author is certain that you "cannot assume" this to be the case, so there's no uncertainty here. -
Bwhether or not historians Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 4-5; Lines 10-11) This answer can also be tricky! We know that Garcia believes the earlier historians were wrong in some way, and that the Author thinks that Garcia's argument has two flaws. And just because she thinks Garcia's argument is flawed doesn't mean she thinks the opposing point is correct! So we can't be certain how the Author feels about those historians. But the question asks us for something the Author expresses uncertainty over, and she doesn't state any uncertainty on this front, so this answer is wrong. -
Cwhether or not there Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 35-36) We just saw this in the last question! The Author definitively states that this activism was characterized by disagreement. -
Dthe extent to which Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Review the Author's viewpoint to find uncertainty, then find an answer backing it up
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
This question is interesting in that it's asking for something specific, even if that specific thing isn't a topic. Rather, it's something that the Author "expresses uncertainty" over—so we need something that is explicitly noted by the Author as something she's not sure about.
So let's take a look at our notes. Paragraph 1 mostly discusses Garcia's views. Where the Author shows up, she's pretty certain—Garcia is "persuasive" in one way but his argument "suffers from two flaws." Both of those opinions are certain.
In Paragraph 2, the Author says that Garcia's analysis "is not entirely consistent"—no uncertainty there. And it ends saying that Mexican American activism "has been characterized" by disagreement since 1930—again, no uncertainty.
Must be in Paragraph 3, then. There, we see the Author say that Garcia "may be exaggerating" how representative the activists' views were of all Mexican Americans at the time. Finally, that's a view that's less than certain. She doesn't argue that the activists weren't representative, just that they may not have been, or at least not to the extent Garcia argues. Since the Author concludes this paragraph with another certain view ("one cannot assume"), this is the only place where she expresses uncertainty, so it should be reflected in the correct answer.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 37-40) The Author states that Garcia "may be exaggerating" the representativeness of activist views among the broader population. In using the "may" language here, the Author is showing that she's not certain whether he is exaggerating or not—it's a possibility, but not a certainty. This answer is therefore correct.
Key Takeaway:
The certainty of statements shows up as important yet again! Noting the different levels of certainty in the Author's opinion statements (generally certain; here, tentative) would have made it a lot easier to find this answer. Always note certainty words, and have a general idea of where the Author's opinion lies on that spectrum—especially if it switches for different opinions. -
Ethe nature of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 18-25) The Author uses these two groups as ones that were "diametrically opposed" to each other—no uncertainty there. While the Author does say "often" in this section, she then ties her statement to specific groups which serve as an example of a situation where this did happen, so there's no uncertainty.
What this tests
Question analytics
Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.
Answer choice distribution
Accounts
Save your place across PrepTests
Bookmark questions, build weak-spot lists, and pick up exactly where you left off—built for serious repeat practice.
No payment yet. We will only email when accounts open.
Already have an account? Log in
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
-
Choice A 2 replies
Started by candace
-
Support in passage? 1 reply
Started by rmkrutz@crimson.ua.edu