Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT115 S1 P3 Q18 Explanation

Haraway’s Primate Visions

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

TopicsApplicationScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

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. Primatology for scientists’ conscious and unconscious projections of their beliefs about nature and culture.

Haraway’s most radical departure is to challenge the traditional disjunction between the active knower (scientist/historian) and the passive object (nature/history). In Haraway’s view, the desire to understand nature, whether in order to tame it or to preserve it as a place of wild innocence, is based on a troublingly masculinist and colonialist agents cannot be reduced to a single, coherent reality—there are necessarily only multiple, interlinked, partial realities.

This iconoclastic view is reflected in Haraway’s unorthodox writing style. Haraway does not weave the many different elements of her work into one unified, overarching Story of Primatology; they remain distinct voices that will not succumb to a master narrative. This fragmented approach to historiography is familiar enough in historiographical theorizing but history, whether strictly narrative or narrative with emphasis on a causal argument.

Haraway is equally innovative in the way she incorporates broad cultural issues into her analysis. Despite decades of rhetoric from historians of science about the need to unite issues deemed “internal” to science (scientific theory and practice) and those considered “external” to it (social issues, structures, and beliefs), that dichotomy has proven one must shed a great many assumptions about what properly belongs to the study of science.

What this question is testing

Application

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
18.

Which one of the following best exemplifies the type of “traditional history” mentioned in the third paragraph

Answer choices

  1. Correct70% picked this

    a chronological recounting of the life and work of Marie Curie, with special attention paid to the circumstances that led

    Why this is right

    "A chronological recounting of MC's life and work" sounds like a master narrative. When you recount someone's life and work chronologically, you tend to tell a story that builds over time. This also has the "Narrative with emphasis on a causal argument" because it's telling her life story with special attention/emphasis on the circumstances that led to her discovery of radium.

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

  2. Prediction vs. History7% picked this

    a television series that dramatizes one scientist’s prediction about human life in

    This sounds like it could have a master narrative, but that narrative would take place in a hypothetical future. There's no way we think that "traditional history" told a story about the future. Our common sense tells us that writing history would mean telling a story about the past.

  3. Bad Match: no narrative11% picked this

    the transcript of a series of conversations among several scientists of radically opposing philosophies, in which no resolution

    Stories have a beginning / middle / end. This doesn't sound at all like a narrative story. It just sounds like a transcript of conversations. It's a discussion with no clear takeaways.

  4. Future vs. Past6% picked this

    a newspaper editorial written by a scientist trying to arouse public support for a certain project by detailing the practical benefits

    Like (B), this piece of writing is talking about the future: "If we do project X, we'll get practical benefits Y and Z". Writing a persuasive essay about what you hope will happen in the futue does not sound like writing history.

  5. Bad Match: data, not story7% picked this

    detailed mathematical notes recording the precise data gathered from a

    Sort of like (C), this seems to just be a record of data. A transcript in (C), a set of detailed notes in (E). "The precise data gathered from an experiment" is not a master narrative. It's also not a causal argument. It might form the basis for someone to make a causal argument, but the recording of the data itself seems miles away from "telling a story".

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