#26 - Passage Organization

[Jeff Wren]

Question Line Reference
(See the complete passage discussion here: viewtopic.php?f=896&t=38309)

The correct answer choice is (A).

This question asks for a description of the passage organization. As always, it is best to prephrase the answer before looking at the actual answer choices. The first two paragraphs of the passage discuss the two different criticisms made by modern critics toward Victorian philanthropy.

The third paragraph brings up a flawed assumption that underlies both the criticisms made by the modern critics according to the author. This flawed assumption is that modern, state-sponsored charity is automatically better than the private/individual philanthropy practiced by the Victorians because it is based on a bias in favor of the present way of doing things over the past (the "Whig fallacy").

In the final paragraph, the author defends the Victorian philanthropists.

Answer A is the correct answer. Two related positions (the two different criticisms) are discussed and then the author shows a flaw that they share.

Answer B is wrong because the theories are not necessarily opposing, and the passage doesn't attempt to synthesize them. Instead, the author disagrees with both.

Answer C is backwards. As discussed above, two positions (i.e. criticisms) are stated, and then the author shows a flaw common to both.

Answer D is wrong because the passage doesn't give three examples of a logical inconsistency. The passage describes two separate criticisms of Victorian philanthropy and then shows how both criticism share a common flaw.

Answer E is wrong because the passage doesn't outline one theory and then give two supporting examples. The passage describes two separate criticisms of Victorian philanthropy and then shows how both criticism share a common flaw.

[ikim10]

Can someone explain why (A) is correct and (C) is not?

[Paul Popa]

Sure thing, Kim! The overall structure of this passage can be described as follows: in the first two paragraphs, two major criticisms of Victorian philosophy are described: firstly, that it was obsolete, and secondly, that it was actually self-serving at the expense of those they were claiming to serve. The last two paragraphs show the author rebuking these claims. (A) seems like a good fit: two related positions are discussed (Victorian philosophy was obsolete and self-serving), then both are subjected to the same criticism (by the author).

(C) gets things backwards. We actually get two positions and one evaluation, not the other way around, so (A) is correct. Hope this helps!

[zoezoe6021]

Hello,

I could not find an answer for #26, and I think I misinterpreted the passage structure.

For me,

Paragraph #1: Criticism 1 = Private philanthropy in Victorian society was obsolete since it could not solve real social problems as state-sponsored charities.

Paragraph #2: Criticism 2 = Victorian philanthropy was a self-serving exercise.

Paragraph #3: Refute criticism 1 by saying we should not compare Victorian philanthropy to state-sponsored welfare at that time since the latter is a developed version of the former. People chose private philanthropy merely because the state was incapable of coping with social needs.

Paragraph #4: Refute criticism 2 by saying Victorian philanthropists did help the poor, even though philanthropy is not the sole purpose.


Based on the structure above, I think the correct answer would be "two related positions are discussed, and then each is subjected to criticism"

Could you plz tell me where I got it wrong? Thank you.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi zoezoe6021!

Based on your summarization of what you believe the correct answer should be, it sounds like you have the right answer for this question!

You comment,

I think the correct answer would be "two related positions are discussed, and then each is subjected to criticism"

That summary is almost exactly the same as answer choice (A), which is the correct answer. That answer choice states, "Two related positions are discussed, then both are subjected to the same criticism." As you can see, the only difference is that answer choice (A) refers to them being subject to the "same" criticism.

[zoezoe6021]

Hi Luke，

You got the point. I don't understand why it is the "same" instead of two separate criticisms.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Zoe,

You're correct that the first paragraph focuses on the earlier criticism that Victorian philanthropy was "obsolete" and the second paragraph focuses on the later criticism that Victorian philanthropy was "self-serving."

Unfortunately, you then separated the third and fourth paragraph as separate refutations of each criticism, which is not what the passage does.

The "modern critics" mentioned in the first sentence of paragraph three (line 35) refers to both groups, or perhaps more accurately, one group that had two separate criticisms. In line 4, the passage states "modern commentators have articulated two major criticisms." In other words, the "modern critics" of paragraph three is the same group as the "modern commentators" of paragraph one and includes both criticisms.

In paragraph three, the rebuttal of the modern critics (and both of their criticisms) is that they were guilty of the "Whig fallacy" (line 40).

Later in this paragraph, in explaining the modern critic's fallacy, the passage states, "If most Victorians resisted state control ..., it could only be, the argument goes, because of their commitment to a vested interest or because the administrative apparatus of the state was incapable..." (lines 42-48). The "vested interest" mentioned refers to the self-serving criticism and the incapable state apparatus gets at the "obsolete" criticism.

One final point, if you were able to correctly answer the Main Point question 21, the correct answer can be helpful in answering other questions in the passage such as this one. In Answer D (the correct answer) of question 21, the main point is that "the theoretical bias behind these (i.e. both) criticisms leads to an incorrect interpretation of history." This answer makes it clear that the bias, which is the Whig fallacy mentioned in paragraph three, applies to both criticisms.