#22

[Jeff Wren]

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

The correct answer choice is (D).

This question is asking for a feature that is common to both of the modern criticisms about Victorian philanthropy mentioned in the passage.

The first step is to correctly identify the two criticisms.

The first criticism is mentioned in paragraph one. It is described as the "earlier" criticism (lines 6-7), but this only means earlier relative to the second criticism. It is still one of the two modern criticisms mentioned. This criticism is that such philanthropy had become obsolete or inadequate. In other words, industrialism had created huge social problems that required large scale government action rather than private philanthropy from individuals. The passages states, "these problems required substantial legislative action from the state" (lines 10-12).

The second criticism is mentioned in paragraph two. It is described as the "more recent" criticism (line 16). This criticism is that Victorian philanthropy was self serving. In other words, it was done by wealthy individuals to enhance their own prestige, reputation, power, social network, etc. and wasn't really about actually helping those that they claimed to be helping. In fact, according to this criticism, Victorian philanthropy was really about controlling the labor force rather than helping it (lines 31-34).

In the third paragraph, the author discusses an assumption common to the modern critics of Victorian philanthropy (meaning that it applies to both criticisms mentioned earlier). This assumption is that the Victorian philanthropy of private individuals is inferior to the current trend of "state-sponsored professionally administered charity" (lines 38-39). This assumption is an example of the "Whig fallacy" (line 40), which is the general belief that the present way of doing things is superior to the past.

Answer A is wrong because dishonorable motives were certainly not mentioned in the first criticism. (One could argue that the self-serving motives mentioned in the second criticism may be considered dishonorable, but this isn't specifically addressed.)

Answers B, C, and E are wrong because none of these ideas were shared by the two criticisms.

Answer D is the correct answer. The assumption underlying both criticisms is that the government must be involved (i.e. state-sponsored charity). For the first criticism, this was because individual philanthropy was inadequate. For the second criticism, it was because the private philanthropists couldn't be trusted to do what was best for the people who needed help.

[LSATer]

I am having a hard time understanding why A is not correct and why D is the right answer.

Answer choice D is supported by the first criticism in the first paragraph. The second criticism discusses the self-serving exercise carried out by the philanthropists. So I don't see how D can be right. How do "both criticisms suggest that government was necessary to cure social ills?"

Thanks in advance for the help.

[Adam Tyson]

I think you'll find support for Answer D in this quote, beginning at line 35:

Modern critics of Victorian philanthropy often use the words "amateurish" or "inadequate" to describe Victorian philanthropy, as though Victorian charity can only be understood as an antecedent to the era of state- sponsored, professionally administered charity.

Thus, both modern criticisms acknowledge that philanthropy was not up to the task of fixing the social ills, whether because it was too little or not properly directed at those solutions.

Answer A talks about both criticisms involving "dishonorable motives", and while that might be true of the second criticism (I'm not sure if "self-serving" is the same as "dishonorable", but maybe), the first criticism says nothing about such motives. Rather, it was perhaps well-meaning, just inadequate.

I hope that helps, LSATer!

[LSATer]

Thank you, Adam!

[sw51]

I got the answer correct, but I don't get your explanation. The quote you point to does not establish that those terms are used by holders of the second criticism. Let's say there are 10 critics of which 5 subscribe to the first criticism (and thus use the terms like "amateurish" and "inadequate") and 5 subscribe to the second criticism (they may use terms like "self-interested" or "scheming"). One could still certainly say that "amateurish" and "inadequate" are often used by critics even if its only that first group of 5 critics who use those terms. Therefore, we can't ascribe the view that 'government is necessary' to the latter group of critics.

Am I wrong or is this just a case of it being the best answer of the set?

I think you'll find support for Answer D in this quote, beginning at line 35:

Modern critics of Victorian philanthropy often use the words "amateurish" or "inadequate" to describe Victorian philanthropy, as though Victorian charity can only be understood as an antecedent to the era of state- sponsored, professionally administered charity.

Thus, both modern criticisms acknowledge that philanthropy was not up to the task of fixing the social ills, whether because it was too little or not properly directed at those solutions.

Answer A talks about both criticisms involving "dishonorable motives", and while that might be true of the second criticism (I'm not sure if "self-serving" is the same as "dishonorable", but maybe), the first criticism says nothing about such motives. Rather, it was perhaps well-meaning, just inadequate.

I hope that helps, LSATer!

[Adam Tyson]

The original question in this thread was only asking for support that the second of the two modern criticisms included a belief that government was needed, and the quote I shared was in support of that. The first modern criticism is this one found at the beginning of the passage:

The earlier criticism is that such philanthropy was even by the later nineteenth century obsolete, since industrialism had already created social problems that were beyond the scope of small, private voluntary efforts.

Thus both the earlier modern criticism and the later one are shown to include the idea that the volunteer efforts were inadequate, and the State needed to get involved.

It's not about comparing the two arguments made by the more modern group, but comparing the earlier group (which our author still refers to as modern) to the later one (which includes the folks making claims of amateurishness and inadequacy).

I hope that clears it up!

[lilmissunshine]

Hi Adam,

Could you explain why the third paragraph (or at least line 35-39) refers to the second modern criticism? I thought it might refer to both modern criticisms, since the author does not specify.

The original question in this thread was only asking for support that the second of the two modern criticisms included a belief that government was needed, and the quote I shared was in support of that.

Many thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I think it DOES refer to both the earlier and the later groups of critics, lilmissunshine! The original poster didn't see support for the second group feeling that way, so I pointed that out as applying to both groups. Sorry if it seemed I was implying that it only applied to one of them!

[LSAT4Life]

I think Adam's explanation is really help here but I'm a little confused on what the two criticisms are. Paragraph #1 mentions that there are 2 criticisms.

I thought the two criticisms are :

• #1: "the earlier criticism" that philanthropy was obsolete (in para 1)
  #2: the "more recent" criticism that the Victorian philanthropy is self serving (in para 2)

I thought the views of the "modern critics" in para 3 is separate from para 2 so I didn't think (D) is correct.

[atierney]

Hi LSAT4Life,

You are correct in your assertion of the two major criticisms. They are as you state them to be, found in the locations stated as well. And the first criticism implies the need for government involvement via lines 9-10 ("created social problems that were beyond the scope of small, private voluntary efforts."). Support for answer choice D via second criticism, which does extend to the third paragraph, and which incorporates the "modern" critique at large, in my reading, comes in lines 35-39.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.