Reading Comprehension

PT115 · S1 · P3 · Q17 Haraway’s Primate Visions

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

Donna Haraway’s Primate Visions is the most ambitious book on the history of science yet written from a feminist perspective, embracing not only the scientific construction of gender but also the interplay of race, class, and colonial and postcolonial culture with the “Western” construction of the very concept of nature itself.

Topic

Donna Haraway’s reimagining of the history of science, gender, and nature through primatology and feminist theory.

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy + Challenge Position

Main Point

Haraway’s Primate Visions radically rethinks the history of science by rejecting traditional, unified narratives and challenging the separation between scientist and subject as well as between science and culture; instead, she argues for a fragmented, multiperspective view that includes cultural forces and nonhuman actors as shapers of knowledge. ()

P1: Introducing Haraway’s Book and its Ambition

Haraway’s Primate Visions is described as a bold, feminist history of science that doesn’t just look at gender, but also brings in race, class, and culture to show how Western views of nature have been shaped. Primatology is chosen as her entry point, since our closeness to primates invites scientists to project human societal beliefs onto them.

P2: Haraway’s Theoretical Challenge to Science

Haraway directly questions the usual idea that scientists are completely separate from the subjects they study. She says seeing nature as something apart from and controlled by people is outdated and problematic. Instead, she thinks both human and nonhuman agents (like primates themselves) help build what we know—and that instead of a single truth, we have many, interconnected partial truths.

P3: Haraway’s Unconventional Writing and Historical Approach

This different way of thinking is matched by her nonlinear, fragmented writing style. Rather than tying everything into one grand narrative about primatology, Haraway keeps separate voices distinct, refusing to force them into a "master story." This patchwork method is rare among historians of science.

17.

The "iconoclastic view" mentioned in the first sentence of the third paragraph refers to which one of the following?

  1. Correct

    the assertion that there is

    Why this is right

    We were looking for, "can't be reduced to a single reality". This is saying, "there is no way to construct a unified/comprehensive reality." They went fancy with synonyms, we can see. What about the rest of the answer, the "different fragments that contribute to the construction of scientific knowledge"? That's coming from the final two sentences of the 2nd paragraph. She proposes an approach that recognizes that many different entities (fragments) contribute to our knowledge of nature, but these perspectives (i.e. fragments) cannot be reduced to a single (unified), coherent (comprehensive) reality.

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

    72% picked this

  2. the advocacy of the incorporation

    Opposite

    The iconoclastic view was that "you can't reduce all the various contributors to human knowledge into one, single, complete reality. There will always be multiple, linked realities." This answer is saying Haraway thinks that people who are trying to construct a unified Story of Primatology should try to incorporate many different sources, both literary and scholarly. Haraway does think that we should incorporate many sources in our pursuit of knowledge. But she does not think that we will get a unified theory. She doesn't weave the many elements into one unified, overarching story.

    9% picked this

  3. the argument that the traditional

    Unrelated to Goal

    The iconoclastic view was that "you can't reduce all the various contributors to human knowledge into one, single, complete reality. There will always be multiple, linked realities." This answer has nothing to do with that. While the early 2nd paragraph did tell us that Haraway challenges the traditional disjunction between knower and object, we're specifically being tested on the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

    7% picked this

  4. the thesis that the projection

    Unrelated to Goal

    The iconoclastic view was that "you can't reduce all the various contributors to human knowledge into one, single, complete reality. There will always be multiple, linked realities." This answer has nothing to do with that. While the second sentence of the 2nd paragraph does talk about how the desire to understand nature takes on some creepy masculinist and colonialist vibes, we're specifically being tested on the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

    6% picked this

  5. the contention that scientists have

    Unrelated to Goal

    The iconoclastic view is found in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. This answer is citing language from the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph.

    6% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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