Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT123 S1 P4 Q26 Explanation

Victorian Philanthropists

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

TopicsOrganizationSociety

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

Organization

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
26.

Which one of the following best describes the organization of

Answer choices

  1. Correct77% picked this

    Two related positions are discussed, then both are subjected to the

    Why this is right

    "Subjected to criticism" sounds like an acceptable way to describe the last paragraph (as well as the second to last). Does the rest of the answer make sense? Sure, the very first sentence of the passage announces that modern commentators have articulated two major criticisms (i.e. positions). The rest of paragraph 1 discusses the first position (victorian philanthropy was inadequate). Paragraph 2 discusses the second position (victorian philanthropy was self-serving). And then paragraphs 3 and 4 consist of the author critiquing these modern commentators, saying "Y'all think that the past is always inferior to the present, and you're failing to recognize that Victorian philanthropists may have been sensitive to critiques of inadequacy or self-glorification, but they nonetheless at least tried to help out those in need".

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

  2. Bad Last Ingredient4% picked this

    Two opposing theories are outlined, then a synthesis between the two

    "A synthesis is proposed" is not a good match for the ending of this passage, which is where the author is criticizing the modern views, not synthesizing them.

  3. Reversed Numbers13% picked this

    A position is stated, and two differing evaluations of it

    There are two positions presented (the two major criticisms of modern commentaors) and then one evaluation given (the author's). This is reversing that and saying that one position was stated, and then two different evaluations were given.

  4. Bad Last Ingredient3% picked this

    Three examples of the same logical inconsistency

    This answer makes it seem like the final paragraph(s) was a 3rd example of a logical inconsistency. That doesn't make any sense at all. We just want to hear that the ending was where the author pushed back against the views of these modern commentators.

  5. Bad Last Ingredient2% picked this

    A theory is outlined, and two supporting examples

    This answer makes it seem like the final paragraph(s) was a 2rd example of something. That doesn't match up. We just want to hear that the ending was where the author pushed back against the views of these modern commentators.

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