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

The information in the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review your notes to recall Eltis and Drescher's views, then find an answer choice with which they would agree

Answer Anticipation

This question stem asks us to infer a belief Eltis and Drescher would agree on. If you already anticipated what each party agreed and disagreed over, as discussed in the "Last Thoughts?" section, you would be able to answer this one very quickly.However, if you didn't already make that anticipation, it might be challenging to do so now. Often, one's views are described at length throughout the passage, so reviewing the passage or anticipating what the correct answer will say is not a wise investment of our limited time. If we used our notes to review their beliefs, we might also conclude that they don't agree on much. After all, Drescher argues that abolition cannot result from economic interest alone (P2, S2), while Eltis offers a very economic-focused explanation (P3, S2-4). So, we can go into the answer choices, and for each one, we'll ask: (1) "Does Drescher agree with this?" and (2) "Does Eltis agree with this?" If both agree with the statement, we can select it and move on to the final question.

Answer choices

  1. A
    People of all classes Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does Drescher agree with this?

    Yes, this is a primary feature of Drescher's study. Drescher says that support for abolition "cut across lines of class, party, and religion" (P2, S2). This implies that Drescher thinks that people of all classes in Britain supported the abolition of slavery.

    Does Eltis agree with this?

    It's easy to miss, but the author implies that Eltis agrees that people of all classes in Britain supported the abolition of slavery. According to the author, Eltis answers the question posed by Drescher's study. That question was, "How could popular support for abolition transcend party and class in an otherwise divided England?" (P3, S1). If Eltis answers that question, Eltis must acknowledge that all classes supported the abolition of slavery.

    Since we can find textual confirmation that Drescher and Eltis agree with this statement, we can select (A) and move on to the next question without assessing (B) through (E).

  2. B
    the motives behind Britain's Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does Drescher agree with this?

    Nope. Drescher explicitly disagrees with this statement. As the author says, Drescher concludes that popular support for abolition "cannot be explained by economic interest alone" (P2, S3).

    Because Drescher disagrees with this statement, we must eliminate (B) (even if Eltis would agree with this claim).

  3. C
    the moral vision of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does Drescher agree with this?

    Again, no. The author tells us that Drescher rejects an interpretation based on "the moral vision of abolitionists" (P2, S2). So Drescher doesn't agree that the moral vision of abolitionists played a vital role in Britain's abolition of slavery. Therefore, we can eliminate (C) without even assessing Eltis's opinion (who would also disagree with this statement, incidentally).

  4. D
    British traditions of liberty Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does Drescher agree with this?

    Almost certainly not, although we can't say. The author argues that Drescher idealizes the British tradition of liberty (P3, S2), but we don't know if Drescher thinks other historians have idealized this tradition. That said, if Drescher relies on this tradition to offer his explanation, he probably doesn't think other historians have distorted or exaggerated this tradition. Either way, we can't say Drescher agrees with (D), so we can eliminate it without considering Eltis's opinion.

    (As for Eltis, we can't say he definitely agrees with this. He doesn't say that Drescher idealized this tradition — the author does. Even if he agrees that Drescher idealized this tradition, we don't know if he believes that other historians have also romanticized the tradition of liberty.)

  5. E
    Britain's tradition of political Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does Drescher agree with this?

    Not quite. While Drescher believes that Britain's tradition of political activism played a role in the abolition of slavery (P2, S4), we can't say Drescher believes it played a "primary" role. After all, Drescher also attributes the decline of slavery to "widespread literacy" (P2, S4). However, even if we grant that Drescher agrees with (E) ...

    Does Eltis agree with this?

    Nope! Eltis believes changing economic views played a primary role in slavery's end in Britain. Eltis argues that slavery ended when capitalists realized that they could incentivize workers and build a customer base with higher wages (P3, S3-4), and the products offered to this growing market shifted from items produced by enslaved people to items produced by voluntary labor (P3, S5-6). Since Eltis definitely disagrees with (E), we can eliminate it.

What this tests

Discussion

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

View all discussions Start a discussion