British Abolitionism

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite of Eltis9% picked this

   Although they disagree about the degree to which economic motives influenced Britain’s abolition of slavery, Drescher and Eltis both concede that moral persuasion

   The main clause of this answer says, "Drescher and Eltis both concede that moral persuasion by abolitionists was a significant factor". Drescher felt that way, but Eltis rejected that. The beginning of the last paragraph is where Eltis is calling that idea implausible. "You think these British elite suddenly felt morally bad about slavery? C'mon! They had low wages, harsh vagrancy laws, and some even enslaved unemployed laborers who roamed the countryside." Eltis agrees with Williams that economic factors were the driving force (he just identifies a different economic angle than Williams had).

   9%
2. B

   Correct76% picked this

   Although both Drescher and Eltis have questioned Williams’ analysis of the motivation behind Britain’s abolition of slavery, there is support

   Why this is right

   The opening clause of this answer conveys that we have these two new points of view that are countering Williams' take on Britain's abolition of slavery. So it captures our central topic. The main clause of this answer says, "there is support for part of WIlliams' conclusion". That matches what's going on in the last few sentences of the passage. We knew that the author sided most with Eltis, and Eltis agrees with Williams that economic factors were the driving force (he just identifies a different economic angle than Williams had). Eltis thus concludes that ... Williams' insight into the economic motives for abolition was partly accurate. This answer certainly doesn't feel amazing on a first glance, but it seems to capture the central topic and since our author seemed most inclined to agree with Eltis, it's lovable that the main clause sounds like Eltis's conclusion.

   Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   76%
3. C

   Opposite, if anything2% picked this

   Because he has taken into account the populist characteristics of British abolitionism, Drescher’s explanation of what motivated Britain’s abolition of slavery is finally

   This answer makes it seem like our author said that Drescher won out over Eltis. The author didn't take any explicit side when it comes to Drescher vs. Eltis, but there's an implicit logic to LSAT passages that if an author presents multiple points of view without directly telling us how she feels about them, then the last one that gets to go is sort of the author's preferred choice. So, if anything, we would speculate that the author prefers Eltis over Drescher. Our author seems more on board with the economic explanation (Eltis's and Williams's) than she does with Drescher's populist humanitarian explanation. The author makes a complaint at the end of Drescher's paragraph ("Drescher does not finally explain how ___ "), whereas there is no pushback at the end of Eltis's paragraph.

   2%
4. D

   Too Negative to Eltis2% picked this

   Neither Eltis nor Drescher has succeeded in explaining why support for Britain’s abolition of slavery appears to have cut across lines

   This answer sounds like the main point to a Challenge Position passage, but our author didn't seem to announce any strong opinions about Eltis nor Drescher, other than the very complimentary "impressive" in the opening sentence. The complaint alluded to in this answer occurs at the end of the 2nd paragraph but is only related to Drescher.

   2%
5. E

   Opposite, if anything11% picked this

   Although flawed in certain respects, Williams’ conclusions regarding the economic condition of British slave colonies early in the nineteenth

   The author is writing this passage to tell us about two impressive studies that challenge Williams's conclusions. This answer is saying that the challenges failed and that the author declared Williams the winner. Instead, the author seems to side with Eltis, who is saying that Williams was technically right in his conclusion (abolition happened mainly for economic reasons) while potentially wrong in his rationale.

   11%