Reading Comprehension

PT153 · S4 · P4 · Q27 Grand Theories

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

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.

Topic

The rise, decline, and lingering attraction of grand deterministic theories (like Freudianism and Marxism) in European social/political thought, and a call for a more nuanced historical perspective.

Framework

Challenge Position (challenges the authority and universality of grand theories) Old/New (shifts from grand deterministic theories to a more nuanced, contingent view of history)

Main Point

The author argues that while "grand theories" once offered a comforting, deterministic explanation of history, they have become outdated and inadequate; instead, we should embrace a more nuanced historical perspective that acknowledges the particularity and unpredictability of events, even if this is less psychologically satisfying. The Most Valuable Sentence: The main conclusion is found near the end of the third paragraph:

P1: Introduction to Grand Theories

Social and political thought in 19th/early 20th-century Europe favored "grand theories" like Freudianism and Marxism, which tried to explain everything with one big idea (psychological or economic factors), leading to the belief that history is determined by universal laws.

P2: The Fall from Grace

Grand theories became so authoritative that questioning them was controversial, but their influence has faded as real-world events contradicted them and because their flaws became evident. They're now seen as limited products of their time, not universal truths.

P3: Our Lingering Desire for Grand Narratives & A Better Path

Even though we've discarded most grand theories, we still crave their promise of historical inevitability—this explains our "nostalgia for determinism." The author suggests that this intellectual discomfort might be good because it encourages us to focus on the unique, unpredictable nature of history. The new approach should appreciate the specific details of historical events, finding meaning in their complexity instead of forcing them into rigid, deterministic patterns.

27.

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

  1. Since history is not fully

    Too Strong: cannot hope Contradicted

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

    13% picked this

  2. Since historical contingency cannot be

    Opposite

    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.

    8% picked this

  3. There are enough features common

    Too Strong: all / universal Opposite

    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.

    9% picked this

  4. The works of Marx and

    Too Strong: should be used

    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.

    17% picked this

  5. Correct

    The study of history is

    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.

    54% picked this

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