PrepTest 146
[lcid:3683] Prep Test 146 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4
Reading comp
Passage
. Most sociohistorical interpretations of art view a . body of work as the production of a class, generally a
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Humanities
Paragraph 1
Taruskin's and most sociohistorical analysis of art focuses on just one way that art was made, and it rests on two assumptions that don't reflect the full reality of the situation.
Key Lines:
Lines 1-3 - The opposing point is introduced
Lines 7-10 - A shortcoming of that point is introduced
Lines 8-9 - Upcoming structure is introduced
Lines 11-19 - The structure plays out
Lines 20-21 - The shortcoming is put in context
Lines 24-30 - Two assumptions of the view are noted
Lines 37-41 - Assumption 1 is undermined
Lines 41-44 - An implication of that is noted
Lines 45-47 - Assumption 2 is undermined
Meta-Structure:
View/Criticism - The Author presents the view of "[m]ost sociohistorical" interpretations of art (Lines 1-3), but she then pivots to showing how it neglects one of two ways that art was created (Lines 20-21), and even that rests on assumptions (Lines 24-30) that are wrong (Lines 37-41; Lines 45-47).
Undermining Assumptions - The Author notes two assumptions of the opposing point—two things that "must be" (and "must also be") true for the argument to hold together. When presenting assumptions—especially to a view that she clearly disagrees with—it's likely that the Author will go on to undermine or offer evidence against those assumptions. Here, even though it doesn't explicitly say that that's what it's doing, being primed to look for it makes it a lot easier for us to spot that the next two paragraphs each tackle one of them. The first assumption was that "the elite had...some type of consensus about the world" (Lines 26-27) and the following paragraph talks about how the elite were split, with neither group particularly interested in saying something important with art (Lines 39-41). And The second assumption was that artists didn't subvert the ideals of their patrons (Lines 29-30), which Paragraph 5 undermines by bringing up the art that in fact did cut against these values and were made "unwillingly and with misgivings" by the establishment (Lines 45-47).
Extended Example - The passage is about most sociohistorical interpretations of art, but it uses one person/example to "put a face" to this argument—Taruskin. Since he's an example of this type of analysis, he's not necessary in any main point or big picture questions, as the passage is about more than just his analysis.
Last Thoughts:
The two local structures here (two ways in Paragraph 1 and 2; two assumptions in Paragraphs 3-5) will likely help us work through the questions. Be sure to note such defined structures when they show up!
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- A view is presented along with a shortcoming in it
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Most interpretations (e.g., Taruskin) - Art produced for ruling class, reflecting their ideals
- Shortcoming - Two different ways that happens
- Paragraph note
- The two ways are described
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Way 1 - Rich person pays well-known artist to make a display piece (e.g., a house)
- Way 2 - Rich person pays for work that expresses ideals (e.g., Pope hiring Raphael for apartment pieces)
- Paragraph note
- The interpretations go with one way, showing assumptions
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Taruskin et al focus on Way 2
- Assumptions - The elite have a consensus set of values; the artists don't subvert these values
- Paragraph note
- Breakdown of social classes and the implications for art (Assumption 1 is bad)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Upper class (Arnold) - Ruling and middle class (philistines)
- Implication for art - Talented artists found room at margins (e.g., rich eccentric person)
- Paragraph note
- How artists subverted ideals of elite (Assumption 2 is bad)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Artists went against elite values, and some survived
- Author - Taruskin bends over backwards to explain this unconvincingly ("hidden ways", "unaware," work of which they overtly disapproved")
Taruskin's and most sociohistorical analysis of art focuses on just one way that art was made, and it rests on two assumptions that don't reflect the full reality of the situation.
Key Lines:
Lines 1-3 - The opposing point is introduced
Lines 7-10 - A shortcoming of that point is introduced
Lines 8-9 - Upcoming structure is introduced
Lines 11-19 - The structure plays out
Lines 20-21 - The shortcoming is put in context
Lines 24-30 - Two assumptions of the view are noted
Lines 37-41 - Assumption 1 is undermined
Lines 41-44 - An implication of that is noted
Lines 45-47 - Assumption 2 is undermined
Meta-Structure:
View/Criticism - The Author presents the view of "[m]ost sociohistorical" interpretations of art (Lines 1-3), but she then pivots to showing how it neglects one of two ways that art was created (Lines 20-21), and even that rests on assumptions (Lines 24-30) that are wrong (Lines 37-41; Lines 45-47).
Undermining Assumptions - The Author notes two assumptions of the opposing point—two things that "must be" (and "must also be") true for the argument to hold together. When presenting assumptions—especially to a view that she clearly disagrees with—it's likely that the Author will go on to undermine or offer evidence against those assumptions. Here, even though it doesn't explicitly say that that's what it's doing, being primed to look for it makes it a lot easier for us to spot that the next two paragraphs each tackle one of them. The first assumption was that "the elite had...some type of consensus about the world" (Lines 26-27) and the following paragraph talks about how the elite were split, with neither group particularly interested in saying something important with art (Lines 39-41). And The second assumption was that artists didn't subvert the ideals of their patrons (Lines 29-30), which Paragraph 5 undermines by bringing up the art that in fact did cut against these values and were made "unwillingly and with misgivings" by the establishment (Lines 45-47).
Extended Example - The passage is about most sociohistorical interpretations of art, but it uses one person/example to "put a face" to this argument—Taruskin. Since he's an example of this type of analysis, he's not necessary in any main point or big picture questions, as the passage is about more than just his analysis.
Last Thoughts:
The two local structures here (two ways in Paragraph 1 and 2; two assumptions in Paragraphs 3-5) will likely help us work through the questions. Be sure to note such defined structures when they show up!
Question prompt
Which one of the
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: B
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Humanities
Answer choices
-
AHistorically, art was primarily Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 31-33; Lines 34-36) This answer doesn't bring up the central debate between Taruskin et. al. and the Author over whether their analysis is valid and complete. The content of this answer shows up in the passage, but it was a smaller point in the overall debate. -
BSociohistorical interpretations of art Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Main Point
Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the main point as we defined it after reading through the passage, then find the answer that most closely matches it
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
The passage started by highlighting what is true of "[m]ost sociohistorical interpretations of art" (Linse 1-3) as exemplified by the work of Taruskin. However, the Author then pivots to what this group "fail[s] to clarify" (Line 8). The shortcoming is that the group focuses on only one of two ways that art was made (Lines 20-21) because it makes for a more subtle analysis of how art reflected elite ideals, but it rests on two assumptions (Lines 25-30), both of which are problematic (Paragraphs 4 and 5).
From this, we said:
Taruskin's and most sociohistorical analysis of art focuses on just one way that art was made, and it rests on two assumptions that don't reflect the full reality of the situation.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 7-10; Lines 20-21; Lines 24-30) The Author brings up a shortcoming of most sociohistorical interpretations of art—that it considers only one of two ways that art historically was produced for the elite. And in focusing on one of those ways, it makes two assumptions—that all elites had a consensus view of values, and that artists didn't subvert those values. However, this ignores that elites were split into two primary groups with different values (Lines 37-41), and that artists sometimes subverted the work they were hired to do (Lines 45-47). So the Author claims that this analysis ignores the full complexity of the situation (the second way art was created; the split between elites; the subversion by artists), and that's reflected in this answer saying that their view is overly simplistic. This answer is therefore correct, though if you deferred on it before coming back to it, then you probably made a safe call.
Key Takeaway:
"Overly simplistic" is one of those phrases on the LSAT that sounds more specific than it actually is. All that has to be true of an argument for it to be "overly simplistic" is that it ignores all of the information available about the situation. Here, in pointing out one way art was created that was ignored and two assumptions that have information showing they're wrong, the Author shows that the opposing point doesn't have a comprehensive view of the situation. And lacking a comprehensive view of the situation means that the argument is overly simplistic. -
CHistorically, patrons of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 11-13; Lines 40-41) This answer reflects some details from the passage, but it doesn't reflect the overall debate over the view of which Taruskin serves as an example. And as far as the details it reflects are concerned, it focuses on one of the two ways that art was historically created, and the reasons that one of two groups of elites became patrons, so it is missing a lot. -
DSociohistorical critics must engage Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 47-52) This answer reflects the Author's argument against the second assumption she points out in the opposing view, but since it focuses on just one of the assumptions, it's not comprehensive enough to reflect her entire argument. -
EThere have historically been Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 7-10) This answer brings up information that is central to the argument the Author makes against the opposing point, but it doesn't say that that information is used to rebut an opposing point. As such, it misses the main point of the argument.
What this tests
Discussion
-
B and D 1 reply
Started by fable