PrepTest 132

[lcid:3626] Prep Test 132 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3 Reading comp

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

According to the passage, 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 viewpoint of the Critics, then find an answer stating one of their reasons for dismissing it

Answer Anticipation

The Critics showed up in Paragraphs 1 and 2, so we should check there to see their viewpoints.In Paragraph 1, we see that they dismissed Mphahlele’s work because his autobiography was too fictionalized and his fiction as too autobiographical (Lines 12-14).In Paragraph 2, it starts with a critical view that “may not have meant to question” Mphahlele’s writing, so we should move past that view to the ones that are “outright dismissive” of The Wanderers. Those critics criticize the novel for containing an “autobiographical framework” and having real-world characters (Lines 27-30). They also balk at Mphahlele’s inclusion of a vision of the future with no roadmap for getting there (Lines 37-40).So we have a few details that could show up as the correct answer - let’s find one of them!

Answer choices

  1. A
    It should not have Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) (Lines 27-30) Some critics are said to have dismissed The Wanderers because it is populated with real-world characters, so this is the correct answer.

  2. B
    It should have been Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) (Lines 27-30) The critics are dismissive of the novel because they say that it has an autobiographical framework and real-world characters, but that doesn’t mean they think it should be an autobiography - after all, Mphahlele made up stuff for the novel, as well. The critics’ problem with his work is that he blurs the line between fiction and autobiography, so they wouldn’t think that him presenting it as either type of work would be correct!

  3. C
    It does not clearly Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (Lines 35-40) The problem critics have with Mphahlele’s vision of the future is that he doesn’t explain how to bring it about, not that he doesn’t clearly define that vision.

  4. D
    It intends to deliver Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) The Author and Mphahlele bring up his desire to convey a social message - the critics don’t address that. And they certainly don’t call that message controversial!

  5. E
    It places too much Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Lines 30-33) Mphahlele defends his work from the criticism by discussing one fictional relationship in The Wanderers, but that was to address the criticism that the work had too much material drawn from the real-world. The critics don’t mention relationships, and it wouldn’t make sense for Mphahlele to defend against the criticism that there was too much of an emphasis on them by emphasizing one!

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion