Passage Discussion

[bermudask8er7]

I don't understand what the last paragraph is trying to say and what the last sentence (of the passage) means. Can you explain? Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

That last paragraph seems very important, huh? It is. It's the author's most forceful argument in defense of the Victorian philanthropists in the entire passage.

PASSAGE MAP

P1: Introduction of two criticisms on Victorian philanthropy and details of the first.

P2: Details of the second criticism

P3: A description of a view of people who criticize Victorian philanthropy

P4: An attack on that view

SCALE


So, in the final paragraph the author is attacking the critics of Victorian philanthropy. The author is basically saying in the last sentence that the Victorian philanthropists at least put their money where their mouth is; that the Victorian philanthropists were doing good in the world.

[jayparkcom]

I missed a lot of questions on this passage because I missed out on the big picture...

So here is what I think of the scale:

As above post suggested, both 1 and 2nd are all about 2 criticisms in regards to victoria philanthropy: they don't like certain certain things about it.

The first 3rd paragraph is still about those ideas. So, in this context, modern commentators are modern critics. However at the second half of paragraph is all about author: he refutes it.

In 4th paragraph, the author qualifies his view and concludes that their views are inadequate or incomplete.


now,
what I thought was that the last paragraph as well as the latter half the 3rd, talked about only in regards to the 2nd theory or the modern theory.

That's why I thought on q 26, A was wrong because the author was only criticizing the second theory not the first...

But according to other posts, author is actually refuting both of them??

I was so lost with this paragraph...
please help me out!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Uh oh! Looks like lines 4-5 didn't stand out as memorable. There we learn that modern commentators have articulated two criticisms that the passage then goes on to discuss. Since the 3rd paragraph widens the scope back to modern commentators rather than just the more recent criticism, the 3rd paragraph applies to both criticisms outlined in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs.

Good luck!

[xjiang.xj]

I still can't quite understand the last sentence. What does it mean by "putting their money where their mouths were and gave of their careers and lives as well"?

[ohthatpatrick]

"Putting your money where you mouth is" is a colloquial expression that means "back up your talk with actual action".

For example:
Tough Guy 1: You better change your tone, or I'll change it for you.
Tough Guy 2: Oh yeah? You gonna put your money where your mouth it? (translation: are you going to actually fight me?)

Guy 1: Look at this press conference. Why is this politician so bad at communicating? If I were him, I'd be so much better.
Girl 1: Yeah? Well why don't you put your money where your mouth is and run for political office?

The final sentence is trying to give Victorian philanthropists some credit:
Yes, they were aware that some people might think they were just giving money to the poor for the sake of seeming like righteous people.
Yes, they were sometimes condescending to the poor.
But, hey -- they actually DID take action! They didn't just express sympathy for the poor; they actually got involved in helping the poor!