PrepTest 158

Passage Summary Topic:
Humanities

Passage A
Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Rosenthal: No difference between plagiarism and imitation or adaptation
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to Rosenthal:
    • Rosenthal questions the differences between plagiarism and other forms of imitation (first sentence)
    • Rosenthal finds that historically, there is no difference between them (last sentence)
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author (Ricks):
    • Questioning of differences between plagiarism and imitation leads to the "required postmodern answer" that there is no difference between them (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "But…” (last sentence); "invariably leads to the required postmodern answer"(last sentence); "opprobrious” (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author (Ricks): Rosenthal minimizes the moral dimension of plagiarism
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • Although Rosenthal's book teems with a "political fervor" which is "clearly moral," Rosenthal minimizes the moral dimension of plagiarism — that it is obviously dishonest (first and last sentences)
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Rather than focusing on honesty and dishonesty, Rosenthal considers only the "cultural location of the text and the position of the author" (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "clearly…" (first sentence); "What in moral terms is a matter of honesty or dishonesty…" (last sentence); "reduced to…" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author (Ricks): Rosenthal's approach delegitimizes valuable moral considerations
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Cause-and-effect, according to the author:
    • Rosenthal's historical approach to plagiarism leads to the idea that if a moral thought is not universal, it is not valuable (second and third sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "demeans and degrades moral thought" (first sentence); "does not itself entail…" (second sentence); "may be valuable, indispensable, worthy of respect…" (third sentence); "a sad loss to political history" (last sentence)

Passage B
Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Author: Attitudes about plagiarism have fluctuated over time
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Comparisons, according to the author:
    • Plagiarism, like all ideas, has a history (first sentence)
    • Virtually identical acts of plagiarism have been greeted with very different responses (last sentence)
  • List of factors that have influenced attitudes about plagiarism over time, according to the author:
    • Commercial circumstances, new theories of artistic creation, developments in copyright law (third sentence)
  • Point of intersection with passage A:
    • The author of passage A wants us to consider plagiarism a moral issue, while the author of passage B affirms the ever-shifting nature of our considerations of plagiarism (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "repeatedly complicated judgments of plagiarism" (third sentence); "an abiding sense that plagiarism is morally wrong" (last sentence); "much fluidity" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author: Ricks's critique of moral relativism about plagiarism is somewhat simplistic
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to Ricks:
    • A historical approach causes an "extenuating moral relativism" that degrades the dishonest nature of plagiarism (first sentence)
  • Author's view:
    • Not all historical approaches to plagiarism discount their importance (last sentence)
  • Point of intersection with passage A:
    • The author of passage B recaps and responds directly to the author of passage A's claims

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author: Documenting historical attitudes about a concept doesn't necessarily involve endorsing them
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Author’s view:
    • Ricks is justifiably critical of anachronistic scholarship and the tendency to reduce moral standards to expressions of power (first and second sentences)
    • But historical analysis should still try to reconstruct how people felt about plagiarism in the past (fourth and last sentences)
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Historical and contemporary figures have different views about plagiarism, just like people today have different views about plagiarism (last sentence)
  • Point of intersection with passage A:
    • The author of passage B responds directly to the author of passage A's claim. The author of passage B claims that although the author of passage A is justified in their disdain for scholars who always associate moral standards with expressions of power, a historical relativist approach can still be valuable in understanding past points of view.
  • Author's attitude: "rightly dismissive" (first sentence); "also true" (second sentence); "historically remote" (second sentence); "bad history is no argument against history itself" (third sentence); "no necessarily to vindicate them" (fourth sentence); "hardly a consensus" (last sentence)

Main Points?
Passage A: Removing moral considerations from political histories, such as Rosenthal's book on plagiarism, is detrimental to political history.
Passage B: While Ricks is rightfully dismissive of some attempts to reduce moral considerations to mere expressions of power, historical studies on plagiarism should still attempt to try to reconstruct how people felt about plagiarism in the past.

Key Lines?

Passage A:
Paragraph 3, Sentence 1 (P1, S3) - Author's issue with Rosenthal's book
P3, S4 - Author's conclusion

Passage B:
P2, S2 - Author's response to the author of passage A
P3, S1 - Author's concession in favor of the author of passage A
P3, S3-5 - Author's conclusion

Meta-Structure? Relationship Between Passages?
Relationship - Opposing Viewpoints: The authors of these two passages have slightly opposed viewpoints. While both authors agree that the tendency to dismiss moral standards as expressions of power is unfortunate, they disagree on the implications of this tendency. While the author of passage A asserts that any exclusion of plagiarism's moral dimension compromises the historical analysis (PA, P3, S4), the author of passage B argues that there is, in fact, some value to omitting moral standards in historical studies. By doing so, we can better acknowledge the perspectives of our predecessors (PB, P3, S5).

Meta-Structure - Criticizing a Viewpoint: Both passages utilize a Criticize a Viewpoint Meta-Structure. In passage A, the author criticizes Rosenthal's study on plagiarism, which discounts the moral dimension of plagiarism in favor of the "required postmodern answer" that there is no difference between plagiarism and imitation in the arts — other than the fact that those in power get to determine which artistic appropriations are considered plagiarism (PA, P1, S2; PA, P3, S1). To the author of passage A, Rosenthal's study is unfortunately emblematic of recent political histories on plagiarism (PA, P3, S4). The author of passage B, in turn, criticizes passage A's argument. The author of passage B acknowledges that passage A makes a few good points (PB, P3, S1-2), but ultimately concludes that setting aside moral considerations can help historians reconstruct what historical figures actually thought about plagiarism (PB, P3, S5).

Last Thoughts?
Don't forget to read the introduction before "Passage A"! If you overlooked that, you might have missed that Ricks is the author of passage A and that passage B is a direct response to the argument made in passage A.