PrepTest 101

[lcid:3503] Prep Test 101 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 21-27  .        Two impressive studies have reexamined Eric  . Williams' conclusion that Britain's abolition of the  . slave Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Social Sciences


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Author: Two studies reexamine Williams's conclusions about the abolishment of slavery in English colonies; description of Williams's conclusion
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Williams' view:
      • Slavery was abolished in English colonies because it was no longer economically viable, as colonies had depleted their soil, ran up debts, and relied on inefficient labor (first and last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "impressive" (first sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Drescher study: Abolition was driven at least partially by populist demand
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Drescher view:
      • Abolition cannot be the result of economic interest alone since there was popular support for abolition that transcended class, party, and religious lines (second and third sentences)
    • Author's view:
      • Drescher's explanation doesn't fully explain how England, divided by class, mobilized this widespread support for antislavery measures proposed by conservative politicians (last sentence)
    • Comparison between support abolition and other issues, according to Drescher:
      • Antislavery petitions outnumbered petitions on any other issue (third sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to Drescher:
      • Widespread literacy and a tradition of political activism partially caused popular support for abolition (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "more balanced view" (first sentence), "demonstrating" (last sentence), "does not finally explain" (last sentence), "deeply divided" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Eltis's study: Capitalists realized voluntary labor increased productivity and consumption among laborers
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Eltis's view:
      • Although slavery was still economically feasible and accepted in the late 1700s, capitalists realized that higher wages and free labor would increase productivity and laborers' ability to purchase products (second through fourth sentences)
      • Although the products laborers wanted were initially produced by enslaved people, new products were made with voluntary labor, making slavery seem inappropriate and counterproductive to market growth (fifth and sixth sentences)
      • Because there were clear economic motivations for the abolition of slavery, Williams was partially correct (seventh and last sentences)
    • Examples of in-demand products initially made by enslaved laborers:
      • Sugar, coffee, tobacco (fifth sentence)
    • Comparison between views towards labor and slavery, according to Eltis:
      • In the 1600s and 1700s, capitalists used low wages and vagrancy laws to keep workers productive and some even argued for the enslavement of unemployed laborers (second and third sentences)
      • By contrast, in the late 1700s and early 1800s, capitalists began to incentivize workers with higher wages to increase productivity and consumer base (fourth and fifth sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "actually supports" (first sentence), "idealization" (second sentence), "Significantly" (fifth sentence)

Main Point: Drescher and Eltis's studies reexamine and partially confirm Williams's conclusions about the abolition of slavery in English colonies in 1807.

Key Lines?

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Williams's conclusion

P2, S2 - Drescher's conclusion

P2, S4 - Author's commentary on Drescher's conclusion

P3, S7  - Eltis's conclusion and resolution with Williams's conclusion

Meta-Structure?

Resolving a Debate: This passage best fits the Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure. This passage presents a debate on what led to the end of slavery in the English colonies in 1807. On the one hand, Eric Williams argues that the end was driven by pure economics — bad soil, debt, and inefficiency made slavery an impediment to economic progress (P1, S1-2). On the other hand, Seymour Drescher argues that the popular will of the people — spurred in part by the English tradition of liberty — shows that economics alone can't explain slavery's demise in England (P2, S2, S4). But the author uses David Eltis's argument to resolve both sides of this debate. The author thinks the populist support helped usher slavery's decline but doesn't think Drescher adequately explained what led to the popularity of the antislavery movement — a movement that united a class-divided England (P2, S4).

The author suggests that David Eltis's argument has the answer, which partially vindicates Williams's position (P3, S1). According to Eltis, slavery remained economically feasible through the early 1800s, but capitalists realized they could incentivize productivity and expand their customer base by paying laborers higher wages (P3, S4, S7). As the goods laborers wanted to purchase shifted from goods produced by enslaved people to goods produced by free laborers, slavery seemed outdated and counterproductive to capitalists (P2, S6). In other words, the author uses Eltis's position to show that Williams and Drescher are both partially correct (and partially incorrect) about English abolition.

In a Resolving a Debate passage, the main point is generally the author's opinion of the debate. The author thinks that Drescher and Eltin both correct some inaccuracies in William's conclusion about the end of slavery, but Eltin's argument shows that William's is also partially correct. We summarized this opinion thusly: "Drescher and Eltis's studies reexamine and partially confirm Williams's conclusions about the abolition of slavery in English colonies in 1807."

Last Thoughts?

On a Resolving a Debate passage, we encounter several viewpoints. This allows test-writers to ask us several questions about the similarities and differences between these views. The test-writers can't help but take this opportunity. While we can always check the passage to answer these questions, we can progress through the questions much more quickly if we form a clear, Venn-diagram-like mapping of the areas debaters agree and disagree on. On your scratch paper, you can even make a Venn diagram, but we'll outline the similarities and differences between the views here:

Drescher and Williams agree that:

  • Abolition was not driven by the moral vision of abolitionists (P1, S1; P2, S2)

Drescher and Williams disagree over whether:

  • Abolition was driven primarily by popular support for liberty or by economic motives (P2, S1)

Drescher and Eltis agree that:

  • Abolition of slavery was supported across class and party lines (P2, S2; P3, S1)

Drescher and Eltis disagree over whether:

  • Abolition was driven primarily by popular support for liberty or by economic motives (P3, S2)

Eltis and Williams agree that:

  • Abolition was driven by economic motives (P3, S7)

Eltis and Williams disagree over whether:

  • Slavery was economically viable in the early 1800s (P3, S7)

Question prompt

According to Eltis, low Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Refer to notes or what you highlighted/underlined to locate where the passage discusses Eltis's views on low wages and Draconian vagrancy laws, and refer to the relevant part of the passage as needed to find that answer choice that must be true

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to find a specific detail mentioned in the passage, quickly finding and reviewing that piece of information is paramount. That is why we make brief notes describing the role of each paragraph and highlight or underline definitions and the minor Meta-Structures — doing so helps us find the salient information efficiently and reliably.Here, the question asks about the purpose of low wages and Draconian vagrancy laws in Britain, according to Eltis. Where did that show up in the passage? From our notes, we know Eltis's views are in the third paragraph. Alternatively, we can use the CTRL/Command + F search function to locate this reference. In that paragraph, Eltis argues that Britain's use of law wages and vagrancy laws were intended to "ensure the industriousness of British workers" (P3, S2). So, let's look for that in one of the answer choices.

Answer choices

  1. A
    protect laborers against unscrupulous Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say that low wages and vagrancy laws were intended to ensure the industriousness of British workers?

    Nope. In fact, low wages and vagrancy laws sound like the very definition of "unscrupulous" (unfair) employment practices, so they probably don't protect laborers against such practices.

  2. B
    counter the move to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say that low wages and vagrancy laws were intended to ensure the industriousness of British workers?

    No. So, decisive test-takers would table or eliminate (B).

    If we needed to review this answer choice, we'd see that it's trying to contrast low wages and vagrancy laws to the "notables" who called for the enslavement of unemployed laborers (P3, S3). However, Eltis didn't contrast these. In fact, Eltis suggests they all illustrate the same point —that Britain wasn't promoting liberty at this time. British barons paid workers low wages, the government punished people who lacked a visible means of support, and some even said unemployed people should be enslaved. Therefore, Eltis doesn't believe that low wages and vagrancy laws were intended to "counter" the move to enslave unemployed laborers.

  3. C
    ensure a cheap and Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) Does this say that low wages and vagrancy laws were intended to ensure the industriousness of British workers?

    Yes. A "productive work force" is roughly synonymous with "industriousness workers." However, the excerpt from the passage didn't explicitly say these measures were meant to ensure a "cheap" workforce. Of course, if these workers are paid low wages, they'll be "cheap," so this isn't a stretch of the imagination.

    Still, since this is a partial match to our anticipation, we can take a look at (D) and (E). If we can confidently eliminate those, we can select (C) with more confidence.

  4. D
    ensure that the work Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say that low wages and vagrancy laws were intended to ensure the industriousness of British workers?

    Nope. Eltis never says that these measures were meant to ensure that workers experienced no unemployment. Therefore, this answer choice is unsupported.

  5. E
    ensure that products produced Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say that low wages and vagrancy laws were intended to ensure the industriousness of British workers?

    No. So experienced test-takers would eliminate this answer choice.

    If we felt compelled to review (E) more thoroughly, we'd see that it's not supported by the passage. Eltis says that low wages, vagrancy laws, and calls to enslave unemployed workers bespeak a desire to keep costs low (P3, S2-3). However, the passage never implies that owners wanted to keep costs low to make Britain's products competitive with those produced in British colonies. In fact, Eltis suggests that they wanted to keep British exports competitive with products in the other countries (P3, S3).

What this tests

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion