PrepTest 115
Passage
Passage walkthrough
Topic: Social Science
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Author's conclusion (Haraway's primatology book most ambitious feminist science history book)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Comparisons, according to the author:
- Haraway's book is a more ambitious feminist science history than any other book to date (first sentence)
- Primates seem like us, so Haraway can use them to make conscious and unconscious projections of her beliefs about nature and culture (last sentence)
- Author's attitude: "the most ambitious" (first sentence), "not only" (first sentence), "particularly apt vehicle" (last sentence), "they provide ready material" (last sentence)
- Comparisons, according to the author:
Paragraph 2
- Paragraph note
- Author's support (Haraway argues the division between knower/object is masculine and colonial)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Comparison, according to the author:
- A distinction is drawn between the "traditional" division in scientific inquiry (between knower —scientist/historian — and object — nature/history) and Haraway's approach (miscellaneous human actors & creatures contribute to the knowledge of nature, which isn't singular) (first, fourth, and last sentences)
- Author's attitude: "most radical departure" (first sentence)
- Comparison, according to the author:
Paragraph 3
- Paragraph note
- Author's support (Haraway's fragmented, unique writing style reflects her views)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Comparison, according to the author:
- A distinction is drawn between "traditional history" writing and Haraway's fragmented approach (third sentence)
- Author's attitude: "iconoclastic" (first sentence), "unorthodox" (first sentence), "will not succumb" (second sentence), "fragmented" (third sentence), "familiar enough" (third sentence), "rarely been but into practice" (third sentence), "complex alternative" (last sentence)
- Comparison, according to the author:
Paragraph 4
- Paragraph note
- Author's support (Haraway ignores distinction between scientific theory/practice and social issues/beliefs)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Comparison, according to the author:
- A distinction is drawn between "internal" scientific issues and "external" scientific issues (second sentence)
- Author's attitude: "equally innovative" (first sentence), "difficult to set aside" (second sentence), "simply ignores it" (third sentence), "one must shed a great many assumptions" (last sentence)
- Comparison, according to the author:
Main Point: By challenging traditional assumptions of science and adopting a unique writing style, Donna Haraway's Primate Vision is an innovative work of primatology and the most ambitious book on the history of science written from a feminist perspective.
Meta-Structure?Innovative Subject: This passage adopts the Innovative [Subject] Meta-Structure.* This structure is usually reserved for passages about artists but can occasionally appear in passages about scientists, historians, philosophers, and others. In this case, we could call this an "Innovative Scientist" passage, as it's about a primatologist with some ambitious, unconventional ideas.
When a passage falls into the Innovative [Subject] Meta-Structure, the main point focuses on that innovation, as reflected in our main point above. Further, it's important to track whether and the extent to which the author approves of these innovations. In this passage, the author adopts a tone that suggests that the author truly admires Haraway's innovations, referring to her book as "the most ambitious book on the history of science yet written from a feminist perspective" (P1, S1), her writing style as a "complex alternative" to the traditional (P3, S4), and her analysis as "innovative" (P4, S1). The author does use some words that can have a neutral or even negative connotation, like "iconoclastic" (P3, S1) and "unorthodox" (P3, S1), and does make a concession that Haraway's writings could be considered by the more traditionally minded to be "distracting … bewildering … digressive" (P4, S4). However, on balance, the author seems to approve of Haraway's work.
*As is often the case with Innovative Subject passages, you could also reasonably call this passage an Old Approach/New Approach passage, characterizing Haraway's approach as the "new approach."
Comparison: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is the comparison. As is often the case for passages that utilize the Innovative [Subject] Meta-Structure, the subject's innovations are frequently distinguished from the conventional approaches. The author distinguishes Haraway's approach from the traditional division between "active knower" and "passive object" in the second paragraph, distinguishes Haraway's writing style from the traditional style in the third paragraph, and distinguishes Haraway's topics from the traditional focus of scientific studies in the last paragraph. We should expect several questions about these.
Last Thoughts?The author uses many words and phrases that convey authorial opinions, so expect several questions about the author's attitude.Question prompt
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
Strategy Overview
Answer Anticipation
Answer choices
-
AThe book is highly Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
(A) Does this match the author's admiration for the innovations in Haraway's book or the author's concession that her writing could be considered bewildering or digressive?
Yes! This answer choice perfectly matches the author's expressed opinions. We have textual support for the claims that the author finds the book "highly original" (referring to Haraway's analysis as "innovative" (P4, S1) and "exciting" (referring to the book as "the most ambitious" book of its type (P1, S1)). We also have textual support for the claim that it would be "difficult for many readers to accept," as the author says that those who cling to traditional assumptions and approaches of scientific writing "may find her discussions of such popular sources as science fiction, movies, and television distracting, and her statements concerning such issues as nuclear war bewildering and digressive" (P4, S4-S5).
Because this is such a direct match for our anticipation, we'd be justified in selecting (A) and advancing immediately to the next question.
-
BThe book is admirable Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
(B) Does this match the author's admiration for the innovations in Haraway's book or the author's concession that her writing could be considered bewildering or digressive?
Nope. A quick check of your notes should reveal that there are no paragraphs that discuss Haraway's research abilities. While the author lists many reasons to admire Haraway's work — its radically new approach (P2, S1), its unique writing style (P3, S1), and its innovative discourse (P4, S1) — copious research is not mentioned here.
-
CAlthough far from ground Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
(C) Does this match the author's admiration for the innovations in Haraway's book or the author's concession that her writing could be considered bewildering or digressive?
No. "Far from groundbreaking" is the exact opposite of the author's belief about Haraway's work — the author refers to it as "the most ambitious" book of its type (P1, S1) and "innovative" (P4, S1). Arguably, "coherently written" is also diametrically opposed to the author's beliefs — the author savers that Haraway's work is not "one unified, overarching Story of Primatology" and refers to Haraway's approach as "fragmented" (P3, S2-S3).
-
DWhile commendably imaginative, the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
(D) Does this match the author's admiration for the innovations in Haraway's book or the author's concession that her writing could be considered bewildering or digressive?
Negative. The author likely finds Primate Visions "commendably imaginative," but noting the main point and the author's admiring tone should be enough to conclude that the author does not find the book "less than convincing."
-
EThe book's thesis is Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
(E) Does this match the author's admiration for the innovations in Haraway's book or the author's concession that her writing could be considered bewildering or digressive?
Nope. The author probably finds Primate Visions "promising and provocative," but the author's main point and consistent praise suggest that the author does not believe the book is "half-heartedly argued."
What this tests
Discussion
-
Why is B correct? 1 reply
Started by RayJ