Reading Comprehension

PT114 · S3 · P3 · Q16 Abrams and Historical Sociology

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

In explaining the foundations of the discipline known as historical sociology—the examination of history using the methods of sociology—historical sociologist Philip Abrams argues that, while people are made by society as much as society is made by people, sociologists’ approach to the subject is usually to focus on only one of these forms of influence to the exclusion of the other.

Topic

The approach of historical sociologist Philip Abrams on how to analyze history using sociology, emphasizing the interplay between individuals and society (structuring).

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

Abrams argues that to truly understand history sociologically, one must recognize that individuals and society mutually shape each other through a process he calls "structuring," and he proposes a four-part method for historical sociological analysis to capture this interaction. The key sentence occurs at the end of the first paragraph:

P1: Introducing Structuring — The Mutual Shaping of Individuals and Society

The first paragraph introduces Philip Abrams’s idea that, although people make society and society makes people, sociologists usually focus on only one side. Abrams urges them to recognize the continuous back-and-forth influence (structuring) between the two.

P2: The Role of Contingencies in Historical Structuring

Here, Abrams expands the idea of structuring to history, explaining that both past events and the conditions we’re born into (“contingencies”—like family life, the economy, available ideologies, and random events) shape who we become and what actions we can take. Our actions, in turn, make history—but only within the structures that contingencies help create.

P3: How to Study Structuring — Events, Context, Agents, and Consequences

Abrams explains that historical sociologists must select key events where individual actions intersect with broader forces, and recommends a four-step method: (1) describe the event, (2) discuss the social context, (3) summarize the life of the main agent, and (4) analyze the consequences for both history and the individual. This approach aims to fully capture the interplay between individuals and society.

16.

Given the passage's argument, which one of the following sentences most logically completes the last paragraph?

Only if they adhere to
Too Strong: only if / any certainty
Everybody in the world knows from their common sense that "events in the historical record were influenced by the actions of individuals". Thus, it's pretty crazy to claim that only if you adhere to Abrams' fourfold structure would you have any certainty about that claim.
1% picked this
Only if they adhere to
Too Strong
Too Strong: only if / very little connection Sociologists currently believe that there is a connection between history and individual agency. Abrams' complaint about how sociology is currently done is that too often it only chooses to look at how society shapes people or to look at how people shape society. Abrams is pushing an awareness of how the connection between history and individual agency is working in two directions at once; he's not trying to convince people that there is a connection.
2% picked this
Unless they can agree to
Too Strong: unless / indefensible
This answer is saying, "Abrams says that if historical sociologists don't do what he's saying, then historical sociology might get treated like an indefensible sidepiece to history and sociology." We want something like, "If they can agree to adhere to this structure, Abrams believes, historical sociologists will less often be guilty of only viewing the causal influence between society and people in one direction."
0% picked this
By adhering to this structure,
Too Strong: chosen to ignore issues
The passage never seems to be complaining that historical sociologists have chosen to ignore certain issues. Abrams is trying to get them to see how individual events are shaped in part by societal forces and in part by the unique contingencies of the individuals involved. He isn't trying to get them to finally tackle certain subject matter they have been avoiding.
34% picked this
Correct
By adhering to this structure,
Why this is right
Unlike (A), (B), and (C), this isn't adopting the harsh posture of, "Adopt my fourfold structure ... or else!" Instead, like (D), it's talking about what is to be gained by adopting the fourfold structure. We want whatever sounds the most like a solution to the problem Abrams identifies at the outset of the passage. In the first paragraph, Abrams is lamenting that "sociologists' approach to history is usually to focus only on how people are made by society or on how society is made by people". Abrams doesn't like these one-sided approaches, because he emphasizes that each historical event is really a point that represents "a cross section of the specific social and individual forces in play at a given time". Describing events with one-sided approaches is oversimplifying the fact that in each event you have social forces influencing the individual and individual forces influencing society. Thus, what Abrams is pushing for is an appreciation of the fact that the connections are more complex (two sided is more complex than one sided).
Skill tested: Add to the Passage · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
63% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free