Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT123 S1 P4 Q22 Explanation

Victorian Philanthropists

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

TopicsLocate DetailSociety

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

Although philanthropy—the volunteering of private resources for humanitarian purposes—reached its apex in England in the late nineteenth century, modern commentators have articulated two major criticisms of the philanthropy that was a mainstay of England’s middle-class Victorian society. The earlier criticism is that such philanthropy was even by the later nineteenth century obsolete, failure of compassion on the part of employers, nor could it be solved by well-wishing philanthropists.

The more recent charge holds that Victorian philanthropy was by its very nature a self-serving exercise carried out by philanthropists at the expense of those whom they were ostensibly serving. In this view, philanthropy was a means of flaunting one’s power and position in a society that placed great emphasis on status, a means of controlling the labor force and ensuring the continued dominance of the management class.

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. This assumption is typical of the “Whig fallacy”: the tendency to read the past as an inferior of the state was incapable of coping with the economic and social needs of the time.

This version of history patronizes the Victorians, who were in fact well aware of their vulnerability to charges of condescension and complacency, but were equally well aware of the potential dangers of state-managed charity. They were perhaps condescending to the poor, but—to use an un-Victorian and gave of their careers and lives as well.

What this question is testing

Locate Detail

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
22.

According to the passage, which one of the following is true of both modern criticisms made

Answer choices

  1. Unsupported Criticism 129% picked this

    Both criticisms attribute dishonorable motives to those privileged individuals who engaged

    Only criticism 2 impugns the philanthropists for having self-serving (dishonorable) motives. Criticism 1 is fine believing this was well-intentioned, genuine stuff. It's just saying, "you're deluding yourselves -- these problems are too big for you to solve."

  2. Unsupported Criticism 112% picked this

    Both criticisms presuppose that the social rewards of charitable activity outweighed

    Only criticism 2 is saying that the philanthropists were mainly trying to flaunt their power and cultivate social connections that could lead to economic rewards (the social rewards). Criticism 1 isn't saying that the philanthropists were seeking something other than genuine solutions to the problems; it's just saying they wouldn't have the power and resources to make a big difference in solving these problems. It never implies that they receive some social reward out of trying.

  3. Opposite9% picked this

    Both criticisms underemphasize the complacency and condescension demonstrated by

    In the final paragraph, the author is saying that these criticisms overemphasize the condescension and complacency of the Victorians. Our author defends the philanthropists by saying, "Stop acting like they were complacent and condescending. They were self-aware about how their efforts could be viewed that way, and commendably they went ahead an tried anyway."

  4. Correct40% picked this

    Both criticisms suggest that government involvement was necessary to cure

    Why this is right

    This is well supported by criticism 1, which was essentially saying exactly this: the attempt by wealthy individuals to try to tackle these huge problems is never gonna amount to a significant fix. These problems "require substantial legislative action by the state". Where do we get support for this from the 2nd type of critics? The 3rd paragraph refers to "modern critics of Victorian philanthropy". Seemingly this encompasses both the 1st and 2nd type of criticism, since both of those are identified in the 1st paragraph as belonging to "modern commentators". And the 2nd type of criticism is also identified as the "more recent". So if the 3rd paragraph is talking about both of these types of critics together (or even skewing towards the 2nd type). we can use this text as ammunition as well. That first sentence is saying that both types of modern critics 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. That implies that both types of critics saw Victorian philanthropy as inadequate, not up to the task of solving the big problems it targeted. An inferior attempt before the superior era of state-sponsored government involvement stepped in.

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

  5. Unsupported by Both10% picked this

    Both criticisms take for granted the futility of efforts by private individuals to enhance their social status

    The 1st criticism isn't talking about whether or not the philanthropic attempts were an effort to enhance social status, so we have no support there. And the 2nd criticism wasn't saying that these efforts were futile; if anything, it makes it seem like philanthropists WERE able to cultivate social connections that could lead to economic rewards.

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