Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT153 S4 P4 Q27 ExplanationGrand Theories

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

TopicsAuthor OpinionHumanities

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

Social historians have noted that European social and political thought of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was marked by the popularity of “grand theories,” influential intellectual movements such as Freudianism or Marxism that attempted to account for a broad range of historical phenomena with a single, ambitious explanation. Freudianism, for example, naturally tend toward historical determinism, the view that history develops according to universal and necessary laws.

Grand theories were sometimes so influential that, in certain intellectual circles, challenging them was tantamount to denying scientific fact. In recent years, however, the authority wielded by these theories has been tarnished by the occurrence of events that do not fit them. In some cases, they have also been discredited by being of their era, possessing inherent explanatory limitations, rather than the universal truths they purported to be.

Despite the decline of grand theories, people have what one scholar calls “a nostalgia for determinism.” The attraction of grand theories was the sense they conveyed that history is logical and proceeds according to certain universal laws; in discarding these theories, we seem to have lost faith in historical determinism. But while short, it would allow for the possibility of historical explanation without viewing history as fully determined.

What this question is testing

Author Opinion

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
27.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely agree with which one of

Answer choices, explained

  1. Too Strong: cannot hope Contradicted13% picked this

    Since history is not fully explainable, we cannot hope for

    In the final paragraph the author says in this way it might permit us the kind of narrative satisfaction.

  2. Opposite9% picked this

    Since historical contingency cannot be predicted, the study of history must

    In the last paragraph the author wants us to embrace contingency: perhaps this is no bad thing, we might relinquish vain hope for "inevitability" and restore us to contemplating good ol' historical contingency.

  3. Too Strong: all / universal Opposite10% picked this

    There are enough features common to all people’s experiences to provide the foundation for universal

    The author is saying "we're not gonna find a theory that can give us universal laws. there are wacky one-off contingencies that happen. We'll enjoy them and learn from them." This is an incredibly strongly worded belief: The whole range of human lives has enough of a common denominator, that it could be explained by a universal law of history. When the author advocates for a historical perspective that is tolerant of and even excited about historical contingencies, she talks about "laws that constrain rather than necessitate". In a universal law, the left side necessitates the right side.

  4. Too Strong: should be used18% picked this

    The works of Marx and Freud illustrate the historical perspective that should be used for studying events

    The author gives Marx and Freud credit for having had plausible explanations for history up until that point. That's a low bar. And the author even makes it sound less like an endorsement by saying, It's not that they were implausible ... This isn't strong enough approval of Freud and Marx to infer that the author thinks THEY are the definitive lens through which to view 19th century history.

  5. Correct50% picked this

    The study of history is impaired by the imposition of

    Why this is right

    Grand theories = imposition of universal patterns. So would the author say that the study of history is impaired by grand theories? It's supportable. Impaired is not super strong verb. Any sort of detriment counts as impaired. The support would come after the author's 2nd "But" pivot in the last paragraph: perhaps this discomfort (that we're feeling, because we got rid of trying to impose universal patterns) is no bad thing, (is good) we might relinquish vain hope for "inevitability" (vain hope is useless hope by definition, so we're relinquishing a negative) and restore us to contemplating X, Y, Z, all of which can serve as stimuli to serious thought. Since the author is mentioning positives in this post-universal patterns world, we can support the idea that she would say "those grand, universal theories we were trying to impose were holding us back from appreciating the messy, complicated, but rich and curious flow of history."

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

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