Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT123 S1 P4 Q23 Explanation

Victorian Philanthropists

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

TopicsAuthor's AttitudeSociety

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

Author's Attitude

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
23.

Which one of the following best describes the attitude of the author of the passage toward the “Whig”

Answer choices

  1. Correct74% picked this

    strong

    Why this is right

    The author's 3rd and 4th paragraphs are both criticizing this Whig interpretation, so we know she disagrees with it. In the 3rd paragraphs, the author is mocking them by sarcastically playing along with their thinking -- "Victorian philanthropy can only be understood as an antecedent to 'superior' state-sponsored charity", and "If most Victorians expended their resources on private, voluntary philanthropies, it could only be, the argument goes, because of their vested interest." Not to mention, it's called the Whig fallacy for a reason -- the author thinks it's fallacious / wrong to think that way.

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

  2. Too Weak11% picked this

    mild

    The author spends two paragraphs to punch back at this interpretation, so it's not going far enough to say that she's just mildly skeptical. Mild skepticism would sound more like, "But perhaps this version of history is unfairly patronizing to the Victorians". Instead, we have "this version of history is patronizing to the Victorians. This is a fallacy of thinking that earlier stuff is therefore inferior."

  3. Out of Scope: amusement8% picked this

    cynical

    Cynical amusement is what some people get when they go on Twitter and doomscroll. The world is ending, and it's kind of fun to watch. The author wrote this passage specifically to disagree with these modern critics, so saying her attitude is cynical amusement makes it seem like she wants to sit back and enjoy their mistakes and wrongness. But she isn't amused. She's actually getting in the ring and challenging the Whig interpretation to a fight.

  4. Not Indifferent3% picked this

    bland

    To my knowledge, there has never been a correct answer to an attitude question that was "neutral". If LSAT is bothering to ask about attitude, there is some. The author is definitely not indifferent, since the 3rd and 4th paragraphs are challenging the perspective of the Whig interpretation.

  5. Opposite4% picked this

    unqualified

    Unqualified Support means that you support something wholeheartedly, with no qualms whatsoever. Our author does not like the Whig interpretation, so this is more like the opposite of what we want.

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