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

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

Remind ourselves of the main point of the passage, then head to the answers, focusing on those that line up with the main point and then using our notes/the passage to find the correct answer

Answer Anticipation

This question stem provides no indication as to the topic of the correct answer or where it’ll show up in the passage. As such, we’ll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). From there, we can head to the answers, deferring on those that don’t line up with the main point. For those that do, we’ll use our notes and the passage to see if it’s correct.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Mphahlele's stance as a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) (Lines 41-43) The Author says that Mphahlele “shows little interest” in distinguishing between autobiography and fiction, so this answer is contradicted by the passage.

  2. B
    The social vision contained Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) (Lines 12-17; Lines 27-30; Lines 38-40) While critics have been dismissive of Mphahlele because his works are neatly autobiography or fiction, this answer goes too far in stating that his social vision is “irrelevant” to these critics. They may find that aspect of his work to be important, but it’s overshadowed by the flawed implementation. In general, something has to be called irrelevant, or there has to be a set list of things that are considered, for an answer using that language to be correct - it rarely happens!

  3. C
    Critics are concerned with Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) The Author never discusses why Critics try to categorize works, just that they do and it misses the point of Mphahlele’s writing.

  4. D
    If Mphahlele were to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) (Lines 35-40) The Author notes that Mphahlele provides a wonderfully articulated vision of the future, but critics “often balk at this vision because” Mphahlele doesn’t provide a road map on how to get there. Since the lack of direction as to how to reach his vision of the future is the reason that some critics balk at Mphahlele’s vision, we can infer that fewer would balk at that vision if he were to provide that road map. This answer is therefore correct.

  5. E
    For a work to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Lines 12-14; Lines 27-30) This is a tempting answer, but its extreme nature (“must not contain any”) should give you pause. When the view of the critics is discussed, do they say that a novel can include no autobiographical elements? They don’t. In Paragraph 1, they criticize The Wanderers for being “too autobiographical,” suggesting that there might be a lower level of autobiography that would be acceptable in a novel. And in Paragraph 2, they criticize The Wanderers for having “an autobiographical framework” and a population of “real-world characters.” It’s possible that had it lacked either of these, or had fewer real-world characters, then it would have been acceptably classified as a novel. This answer is therefore incorrect.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion