Reading Comprehension

PT137 · S1 · P1 · Q1 Lorenzo Tucker

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

Start practicing free

Until my present study, African American entertainer Lorenzo Tucker had not been extensively discussed in histories of United States theater and film.

Topic

Lorenzo Tucker’s contributions to African American theater and film, and the process of creating his career biography.

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy (With elements of Answer / Explain—explaining the approach and challenges of the biography)

Main Point

Lorenzo Tucker was an influential but understudied figure in American entertainment, and this study uses a careful blend of oral and documentary evidence to create his career biography, thereby addressing a gap in historical scholarship. The Most Valuable Sentence: (End of P4)

P1: Introducing Tucker and His Significance

We’re told that Lorenzo Tucker made major contributions to theater and film over sixty years, yet he hasn’t received much scholarly attention. The author collected memorabilia and personal memories from Tucker himself, aiming to shed new light on a neglected corner of U.S. entertainment history.

P2: Methods and Sources for the Study

The author explains the variety of sources used to research Tucker’s life, including library archives, interviews with fellow performers, viewing Tucker’s films, and especially personal interviews with Tucker.

P3: Pros and Cons of Biographing a Living Person

Here the author discusses the benefit of being able to interview the subject directly, but also the bias and unreliability that comes with personal memory, which means careful corroboration is necessary.

1.

Which one of the following most accurately summarizes the passage?

  1. The career biography of Tucker

    Wrong Emphasis

    Wrong Emphasis: mainly because of Out of Scope: innovative The author would probably say that Tucker's bio is an important addition mainly because not enough attention has thus far been paid to him or this part of U.S. entertainment history. The author doesn't ever signal that any of her methods of research are particularly innovative. And she doesn't sound like she's correcting misinterpretations, so much as filling in knowledge gaps.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    Evidence from a variety of

    Why this is right

    This wraps its arms around much of the passage. Evidence from a variety of sources = beginning of P2, where learn about microfilmed correspondence, photos, programs, newspapers, the 10 available films he was in, and the personal interviews with him. Scrutinized and combined = the beginning of P4 reassures us that this potentially suspect oral testimony has "undergone careful scrutiny". Career bio of Tucker = last sentence of the passage Fill certain gaps = the two mentions in the first paragraph about insufficient scholarship and not enough attention.

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

    88% picked this

  3. Tucker's interest in preserving a

    Unsupported Relationship

    This posits a causal story that sounds like, "Tucker set out to preserve and make public a vast collection of African American film and theater, which is now filling in the gaps". The passage, meanwhile, was like, "I wrote a paper about Tucker, who happened to preserve a lot of things about African American film and theater, and by making my paper public it will help fill in the gaps."

    1% picked this

  4. The research methods used in

    Too Narrow / Broad

    This is too narrow in the sense that only the 3rd paragraph was concerned with the potential pitfalls of the research method of interviewing the living subject of a biography. This was our author's attempt to anticipate and allay possible fears about whether her paper on Tucker would be unreliable due to its method / primary source. This is too broad in the sense that our author wasn't writing about Tucker as an example of her main point, which is actually about the inherent problems in the quest for objectivity. The main point was "hey, wanna hear about Tucker's life?" and her subsidiary concern was, "by the way, I'm aware of some of the problems inherent in the quest for objectivity".

    7% picked this

  5. Previous theater and film historians

    Wrong Emphasis

    Our author is definitely saying that historians haven't paid enough attention to Tucker, but she's not saying "sure, they now him as a film actor and theater performer, but they haven't paid enough attention to his nonperforming contributions." Instead, she's just saying, "Tucker is a really interesting figure, both for his performing and nonperforming contributions, and historians haven't studied him enough".

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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