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
The primary function of
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
-
Areject a possible response Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 7-10) The argument made in the first paragraph is that Taruskin and others fail to clarify between the two ways that art has been historically produced for elites. Paragraph 3 states which of the two ways Taruskin and others focus on, and what assumptions are present in that focus. As such, it supports the argument in the first paragraph, it doesn't reject a possible response to it. This answer would describe a paragraph where the Author rebutted Taruskin's response to her criticism of his view. -
Bidentify assumptions relied upon Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Argument Structure
Strategy Overview:
Review our notes for the role of Paragraph 3 in the overall passage
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
Looking back at our notes, we said that Paragraph 3 was meant to build off of the end of Paragraph 1 and all of Paragraph 2, in showing which of the two ways art, historically, was produced are focused on by Taruskin et. al. (Lines 1-2), and then pointing out two assumptions of that view (what "must be" the case for that view to hold). Let's find an answer reflecting that.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 24-30) In Paragraph 3, the Author brings up two things that "must be true" for "this kind of analysis to work." "This kind of analysis" refers to the analysis of Taruskin and others, referring back to the previous sentence. And things that "must be true" for an argument to work are assumptions of that argument. This answer correctly describes Paragraph 3's role in the overall argument, so it's the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
When an argument points out assumptions in opposing points, those assumptions are almost always key to the passage or the argument. In this case, those assumptions weren't presented describing them directly as such, but it was important to note that they were, nonetheless, assumptions. Whenever an argument brings up things that "must be true" for an argument to work, it's talking about assumptions of that argument. -
Cpresent an argument that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. Paragraph 2 describes two ways that art was historically commissioned by the elite to reflect their ideals. There's no argument there, so Paragraph 3 can't weaken it. And even if we did read an argument into Paragraph 2, that paragraph is the Author presenting the two ways that art was commissioned, and Paragraph 3 is also the Author making an argument, so the two would be aligned. -
Doffer additional evidence for Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. Similar to (C), this answer assumes an argument was made in Paragraph 2, when that paragraph was about describing things. And in any case, Paragraph 3 talks about analysis based on one of the things raised in Paragraph 2—in other words, an argument that's based on the information there. It doesn't talk about the thing raised in Paragraph 2 itself, which it treats as established fact. -
Edraw a definitive conclusion Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 24-30) In Paragraph 3, the Author states that for the analysis of Taruskin and others to work, two other things must be true. However, she doesn't state whether or not she believes them to be true in this paragraph—that waits until Paragraphs 4 and 5. So Paragraph 3 doesn't have a definitive conclusion in it.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Started by Ryan-Mahabir