Q26

[jardinsouslapluie5]

I don't understand (A). Could you help?

[ohthatpatrick]

Since this question is all about the big picture organization of the passage, let's talk big picture:

The very first sentence sets out the topic of this passage: 2 major criticisms of Victorian philanthropy.

As an LSAT reader, from this first sentence I know my job in reading this passage is twofold:
i. - make sure I understand what the 2 major criticisms are
ii. - find out how the author feels about them

Line 6 begins describing the first (the earlier) of the 2 criticisms.

Line 16 begins describing the second (the more recent) of the 2 criticisms.

As I finish paragraph 2 (which has elaborated the position of the 2nd criticism), I should be anticipating that it's about time for the author to chime in.

Sure enough, the final two paragraphs discuss the author's reactions to these criticisms.

This is enough of an understanding to answer Q26.

A) Sounds decent. We discussed the two modern criticisms of Victorian philanthropy and then the author spent the last two paragraphs rebuking them.

B) The two criticisms aren't necessarily opposing, and the author doesn't try to reconcile them together. Instead, the author rejects the criticisms.

C) This is backwards. 2 positions are stated (the 2 criticisms), and 1 evaluation (the author's) is given.

D) There are not 3 examples. There are 2 positions and then the author's response.

E) The 2 positions outlined are not "examples supporting a theory". They are criticisms of a historical phenomenon. And this answer doesn't address the final two paragraphs in which the author responds to them.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have lingering questions.

[schmid215]

I don't think any answer works here. B through E are obviously wrong, but isn't A wrong too? Because the author is clearly directing his/her criticism at the second criticism and not the first.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think the author touches on both criticisms.

The 1st criticism (starting around line 6) is that by the 19th century private philanthropy was obsolete ... problems were too big for small, private voluntary efforts ... these problems required substantial legislative action from the state.

The author addresses and attacks this criticism throughout the entire 3rd paragraph. You see keywords throughout that relate back to what we were talking about in the 1st paragraph, such as "state-sponsored, professionally administered charity" in lines 38-39, "resisted state control and expended their resources on private, voluntary philanthropies" in 42-44, and "the administrative apparatus of the state" in line 46.

Much of the 3rd paragraph is spent describing how others (NOT the author) think. But the fact that the author labels this thinking the "Whig fallacy " tells us that the author is mocking all these ideas.

I agree that it's sounds a little weird how (A) says that the two criticisms are subjected to the SAME response from our author, but we can definitely justify that the author pushed back again both the "earlier" and "the more recent" positions.