#16 - Expansion

[Paul Marsh]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (E)

The question asks us to find a sentence that logically completes the last paragraph, given the passage's argument. This directs us to the last sentence of the text. The passage ends fairly abruptly, by listing Abrams's detailed recommendations for the specific structure that sociologists should take to account for structuring (his term for the sociological two-way street between individuals and society). Given that, we would expect a logical completion of the paragraph to be something that ties together the structure recommended by the last sentence and the overall point of the passage regarding structuralism. Before coming down to the answer choices, we want to Pre-Phrase an answer choice. A solid Pre-Phrase would look something like: "This fourfold structure would best allow historical sociologists to describe the bilateral relationship between individuals and society."

With that, we take a look at the answer choices.

Answer Choice (A). (A) does attempt to take the fourfold structure suggested by the passage's end and tie it in with the general point of the rest of the passage. This is a good thing; however, a quick glance at the other answer choices reveal that they all do this, so it's hardy a point in favor of (A). (A) is incorrect as it's too strong ("only if", "with any certainty"), and it misses the main point of the passage by failing to mention the bilateral relationship between society and individuals. (A)t is focused on the relationship working only one way - individuals influencing history - while the passage stresses that the relationship is a two-way street.

Answer Choice (B). (B) completely misstates Abrams's point - Abrams does not think that there is little connection between history and individual agency; the passage is largely spent discussing Abrams's belief about how there is a connection (and that the connection goes both ways).

Answer Choice (C). (C) is too strong. The first paragraph does suggest that Abrams views the structuring as a necessary consideration for the field of historical sociology, but nowhere does the passage suggest that the discipline will otherwise be "treated as little more than an interesting but ultimately indefensible adjunct to history and sociology".

Answer Choice (D). (D) doesn't tie back to the main point of the passage (i.e. the two-way relationship between individuals and society) like we wanted. Instead, it goes off on a point about shedding light on "issues that traditional sociologists have chosen to ignore". The language of "shedding light" and "chosen to ignore" are both a bit strong; there's nothing in the passage that specifically suggests those things.

Answer Choice (E). This is the correct answer choice. It matches our Pre-Phrase pretty well, and ties together the fourfold structure from the end of the passage with the general point of the passage about the two-way relationship between individuals and society.

[Mozart]

Hello,

I just wanted to ask about D) and E).

Is D) incorrect because the author never discusses issues that traditional sociologists have ignored in the passage?

For E), is the support given on lines 31-32, when the author describes historical structuring as "manifold and unremitting?" The adherence of the fourfold structure would help illustrate these characteristics.


Thank you, and I appreciate your help!

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Mozart! Big fan of your work. Let's walk through this one. Please see the explanation I posted above, and let me know if you have any additional questions! Hope that helps!

[ashpine17]

I guess I assumed because there was a one-sided approach that appeared to be prominent, that meant the sociologists were ignoring a more comprehensive one? is that too much of an assumption? i'm talking about this in the context of D

[Adam Tyson]

I think the problem with answer D is that it's too strong, in that the author never suggests that sociologists are "ignoring" any issues. They just aren't seeing the whole picture because they only use one approach (how people influence society) or another (how society influences people) rather than looking at them together. Also, answer D is not about ignoring Abrams' approach, but about ignoring sociological issues, whatever those might be.

[anirbanmukherjee]

ACs D and E employ a key referential phrase “this structure”.

What is this structure? It’s “a description of the event itself”, “discussion of the social context that helped bring the event about and gave it significance”, “summary of the life history of the individual agent in the event”, and “analysis of the consequences of the event both for history and for the individual.”

Focus on the last 2. We have a match for the individual agent’s life history and consequences of the event, in history we have a match for social context that brought the event about and the consequences of the event. Points 2 and 4 in the structure speak to the agent. Points 3 and 4 to history. Point 4 being their intersectionality. What will this lead to — a better portrayal of the complex connections between human agency and history.

I chose AC D because of the word salad trap. But not only is this way too strong, it’s inaccurate. This structure will connect human agency to history but not necessarily society to individual or individual to society. Sociology is not nested in history such that by better understanding history (using historical sociology) we can solve the issues that sociology has not solved. So even ignoring the strong (and wrong) wording of chosen to ignore, the AC is simply wrong. Historical sociology will improve our understanding of history and sociology but not address all missing links in either.

Concretely, sociology may have ignored the influence of AI technology on society (for example). The four fold structure will do nothing for that. History may include natural history where maybe history has ignored how whales evolved their song. The four fold structure will do nothing for that.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi anirbanmukherjee,

You wrote:

"I chose AC D because of the word salad trap."

The test makers often use wordy, confusing sentences (or word salad, as you say) both in answer choices and in the stimuli and passages to test one's ability to handle complex language, a skill necessary for being a lawyer.

The key is to slow down whenever you encounter such wordy sentences and try to simplify the idea while also noting any details that may make an answer wrong. For example, the red flag for me in Answer D are the words "chosen to ignore," since nowhere in the passage is this stated and doesn't really match the tone of the passage. It's too accusatory toward the traditional approaches. While the author believes that his approach is better (unsurprisingly), there's no outright hostility toward the traditional approach.

For these Expansion questions, often the tone of the answer is a big element of why certain answers are wrong. Those answers don't fit the tone of the rest of the passage.