Reading Comprehension

PT137 · S1 · P1 · Q3 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.

Suppose that a well-known nuclear physicist has written and published a book consisting of that physicist's own recollections of the events surrounding some important scientific discoveries. It can be inferred that the author of the passage would be most likely to view the physicist's book as

Correct
being at considerable risk of
Why this is right
This might seem a little harsh, with "considerable risk", but that just means "noteworthy / worthy of consideration". Clearly the author thinks that someone telling their own story is liable to self-serving distortions. That's the whole point of the 3rd paragraph, and in the 4th paragraph, the author is telling us, "Don't worry -- I realized that Tucker's oral testimony would be super sketchy as a primary source, so it's undergone careful scrutiny and has been compared to known facts. For the most part, stuff that couldn't be verified was not included in the book." That's a big show of respect for the potential inaccuracy of self-testimony. The author mostly wouldn't include Tucker's self-testimony in her study unless she could back it up with other evidence, because she doesn't fully trust it as a source.
Skill tested: Application · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
89% picked this
a source of information that
Out of Scope: duplicates public record
If the physicist is sharing their own recollections of events, then they are probably sharing pretty unique stories. The events themselves might already be available in the public record, but the physicist's recollection of them might have details that aren't otherwise known. The author never mentions that Tucker's testimony will probably duplicate stuff that's already known (in fact, the author seems to be boasting that the study will shed light on something that hasn't been looked at enough).
2% picked this
a type of source that
Too Strong: rarely used
The source used in this physicist's book is his own recollections. Did our author say that scholarly history writing rarely uses someone's own recollections? No, there's no mention of how frequently someone's own recollections are / aren't used.
3% picked this
a type of source that
Too Strong: generally inappropriate
The author never talked about histories of scientific discovery, so we have no reason to think that he had specific feelings about whether self-reporting was a type of source that was generally appropriate or not within such histories. The author is not super comfortable using a self-reporting source even for this biography of an entertainer. The author seems to think that in any type of history, someone who is telling their own story is likely to embellish in a way that flatters them.
4% picked this
an authoritative account that does
Contradicted
Our author believes the opposite of this. That's why in the 4th paragraph the author tells us that Tucker's self-testimony "has undergone careful scrutiny / has been placed up against the known facts for verification / was not included in the book unless it could be corroborated by other sources".
3% 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