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
It can be inferred
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: E
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Humanities
Answer choices
-
Arespect
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 38-41) Arnold calls them "Barbarians" and "Philistines," so he doesn't have a positive opinion of them. -
Bempathy
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 38-41) Arnold calls them "Barbarians" and "Philistines," so he doesn't have a positive opinion of them. -
Cindifference
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 38-41) Arnold calls them "Barbarians" and "Philistines," so he has an opinion on them—he's not indifferent. -
Ddisappointment
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 38-41) Arnold calls them "Barbarians" and "Philistines," so he does have a negative opinion of them. However "disappointment" conveys that they don't live up to expectations, and there's no indication that Arnold expected more from them. -
Escorn
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Author's Attitude
Strategy Overview:
Review what Arnold said about these groups, then find an answer matching that tone
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
While this answer doesn't ask about the Author's attitude, it does ask about someone's attitude, so we should use the same principles for this question as we would a normal Author's Attitude question.
Since Arnold was a viewpoint, we should have noted it so we could quickly find it. That leads us to Paragraph 4, and we can see Matthew Arnold first shows up in Line 38. There, he describes the aristocrats as "Barbarians" (Line 39) and the middle classes as "Philistines, obsessed with respectability" (Lines 40-41). Both of those are insults—he's calling them names—so not only should we look for a negative answer, but one that's more negative than we'd normally pick.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 38-41) Arnold calls them "Barbarians" and "Philistines"—two rather harsh insults to throw about. While we wouldn't normally select an answer this negative, the fact that the passage involves Arnold insulting these groups allows us to break out of our normal expectations for the range of attitudes expressed in RC and select this answer.
Key Takeaway:
A good rule of thumb for these attitude questions? Don't pick the strongest or weakest answer unless the passage strays from the norm in expressing such a strong opinion. One example of this is seen here—when someone is insulting a group, their attitude towards that group is more strongly negative than we generally see in RC.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Answer D vs E 1 reply
Started by saskipper