PrepTest 116

[lcid:3560] Prep Test 116 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

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: D

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

Question Type

Humanities

Strategy Overview

Review the purpose of the paragraph including Line 51, then use that and the immediate context around the phrase in question to define the purpose of its inclusion

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us why the author inserted the discussion of literature being “unfairly burdened” into the third] paragraph. Unless a detail conflicts with the paragraph's purpose, the author probably mentioned that detail to advance the paragraph's role. So reviewing the third paragraph’s role, which we hopefully wrote down in the notes on our scratch paper, will generally reveal why the author included that detail.In this case, our note for the third paragraph is, “Author on benefits of reader-response theory.” So the third paragraph is meant to enumerate the benefits of reader-response theory. So, this question is a bit odd, because this question is asking about something being “unfairly burdened” — not exactly the language you’d use when discussing a benefit of something!Looking at the immediate context of Line 51, we can see that it’s a part of a sentence that starts in Line 49. In that sentence, the author describes a drawback — not a benefit of reader-response theory. So, this is one of those cases in which the detail conflicts with the paragraph's purpose. That generally means the author is making a concession to the opposing argument. Indeed, the language the author uses at the beginning of this sentence —“And while” — suggests that the author is making a concession to the opposing viewpoint. So the author concedes that reader-response theory can lead to interpretations that “unfairly burden” literature of the past. However, the author believes that reader-response theory, overall, encourages valuable interpretations and should be considered a legitimate approach to literature. Let’s find an answer stating this purpose.

Answer choices

  1. A
    to reinforce the notion Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say the author described literature as “unfairly burdened” to concede that reader-response theory has drawbacks, even if the theory is, on balance, worthwhile?

    Nope. We can cross this one off simply because it doesn’t match our anticipation.

    Besides, this mischaracterizes something the author says in the second paragraph. The author says that literary works raise more questions than they answer (Lines 35-37), not reader interpretations.

  2. B
    to confirm the longevity Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say the author described literature as “unfairly burdened” to concede that reader-response theory has drawbacks, even if the theory is, on balance, worthwhile?

    No. We can eliminate this because it doesn’t match our anticipation.

    Still, some test-takers are attracted to this option because it ties into the sentence preceding the sentence in question. However, the relevant sentence pivots from that prior one (“And while”). This means there isn’t a strong relationship between these two sentences. So, the phrase in question isn’t reinforcing the idea from the previous sentence.

  3. C
    to point out a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say the author described literature as “unfairly burdened” to concede that reader-response theory has drawbacks, even if the theory is, on balance, worthwhile?

    Negative. We can remove (C) from contention since it doesn’t match our anticipation.

    This also fundamentally mischaracterize the author’s view. Although the author concedes that reader-response theory can lead to unfair interpretations of older texts, the author only does so as a minor point in a paragraph (and sentence!) otherwise dedicated to pointing out the legitimate interpretations that reader-response theory unlocks (Line 49; Lines 52-55). This answer is therefore too strong in saying that this point raises a “fundamental flaw” that invalidates reader-response theory.

  4. D
    to concede a minor Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Does this say the author described literature as “unfairly burdened” to concede that reader-response theory has drawbacks, even if the theory is, on balance, worthwhile?

    Yes it does. Both the content and structure of the relevant sentence support this as the correct answer. Structurally, the phrase is a part of a concession introduced by “while”(which is often used when making concessions to the opposing viewpoint). Content-wise, the sentence pivots from describing a weakness of reader-response theory to discussing the “legitimate additional insights and understandings” it unlocks. Thus, the author raises the interpretations that “unfairly burden[]” literature of the past to concede a minor weakness in reader-response theory while otherwise supporting it as an approach to interpreting literature. We can justifiably select (D) and advance to the following question.

  5. E
    to suggest that reader–response Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say the author described literature as “unfairly burdened” to concede that reader-response theory has drawbacks, even if the theory is, on balance, worthwhile?

    Not quite. We can cross this one off simply because it doesn’t match our anticipation.

    Besides, the formalists believe that reader-response theory encourages fragmented views, not the author. So, the phrase in question doesn’t refer to fragmented views of works. And, in any case, the author wouldn’t view fragmentary views as a bad thing, as the author thinks such varying interpretations can add new depth to the understanding of a work.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion