Q22

[gregory.mortenson]

According to the passage there are two modern criticisms of Victorian philanthropy. 1) it was inadequate; and 2) it was self-serving.

Question 22 asks us which is true of both of the modern criticisms. The correct answer is D (both criticisms say that gov't involvement was necessary to cure social ills). I don't see how the second criticism (self-serving) implies that gov't involvement was necessary -- what am I missing?

[aileenann]

That's a good question, and for the moment I don't know that I have a very good answer. My thoughts are below, but I will also ask another instructor to take a look at this.

I agree that it's somewhat strange that the self-serving criticism suggests that government involvement was necessary to cure social ills. That second criticism - the social control thesis - using philanthropy to ensure continued dominance of the working classes - suggests an alternative to government itself to keeping the working class down. I think I would have picked (D) but only because the other answer choices are manifestly wrong and even contradict the passage, whereas (D) seems a little unconnected to that second theory, which is not as bad as the alternatives.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Tough question indeed!

Here's my take, though I imagine there are other equally valid ways of looking at it:

I think the third paragraph is a key. In particular, how you define "modern critics". To me, "modern critics" is parallel to "modern commentators," mentioned in the first paragraph, and "modern commentators" included those who articulated both types of criticisms.

In that third paragraph, the author states that modern critics view Victorian methods as "inadequate" and a prelude to state-run charity. Furthermore, when we think about the passage as a whole, we can see that the author is, in a subtle way, criticizing modern critics.

Therefore, it seems that the author feels both criticisms were made under a false context--that government involvement is necessary--and that both criticisms were influenced by this false context.

When I couple this with the use of the "management class" in the second paragraph (the connection between "management class" and "government" would be pretty weak if it were the only justification for the answer, but works well as secondary evidence), (D) seems pretty good.

[rmoncel]

This passage threw me off.

On two questions I struggled to understand what the "two
major criticisms" are that are articulated by "modern commentators" (lines 4-5). This is really the core of my post here.

At first, I thought this may be referring to "the more recent charge" presented in the second paragraph (social control theory) AND the views of the "modern critics" presented in the third paragraph. This seems to be aileenann's read as well. If this is a correct reading, then I think answer A on Q22 is defendable because in both instances (paras 2 and 3), Victorian philanthropists are described as self-serving rather than real altruists and hence have "dishonorable motives". Furthermore, according to this reading, answer D infers too much about social control theorists. Nowhere in the second paragraph is it articulated that the government should be in charge of curing social ills.

If the phrase "two major criticisms" refers in fact to the two arguments used by the "modern critics" of the third paragraph ("commitment to vested interest OR incapable administrative apparatus, lines 47-49), then answer D makes a lot more sense. This is the reading that Gregory presented. This is because the author tells us (lines 39-41) that the modern critics understood Victorian charity as "an antecedent to the era of state-sponsored, professionally administered charity". By characterizing this view as typical of the "Whig fallacy" in the next sentence, the author reveals the modern critics' preference for state-led charity.

I wasn't sure what "two criticisms" Mike was referring to.

Thanks for your help.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

To clarify, the two modern criticisms in this question are

(1) the one mentioned in the first paragraph -- that Victorian philanthropy was obsolete (this was made by the earlier of the modern critics).

(2) the one discussed in paragraphs 2 and 3 -- that it was a self-serving exercise that benefitted the philanthropists at the expense of those they were meant to help.

(D) is true of both criticisms.

For the first one, we're told this pretty directly about the criticism in lines 8 - 10 ("required...legislative action... by the state).

The proof for the second one is a little more subtle, but notice at line 35 the author says that the critics felt that V. philanthropy was amateurish, and equate state-run with professional (there is other evidence as well which is discussed above).

Hope that helps clear things up!

[rmoncel]

Thanks for the clarification. The key is that the word "earlier" in "earlier criticism" refers to the earlier ** of the modern critics! ** I thought it was a reference to a view held by critics that predated the modern critics... Thanks again.

[rbolden]

I do see why D is the correct answer choice. But can someone explain in more detail why A is an incorrect answer choice?

Thanks.

[interestedintacos]

A is incorrect because the early modern view doesn't imply the motives of the philanthropists must have been bad. In fact in line 15 it even implies that the philanthropists may in fact be "well-wishing" but that it was irrelevant because philanthropy was obsolete and incapable of solving the social problems created by industrialism.

To put in my piece here: This interpretation may not hold water, and I want to be corrected if it doesn't, but here goes: I think answer choice D was written to trap test takers who read paragraph 2 slightly superficially and left with a slight distortion of the meaning. This corresponds to the direction Ailee was going. They want to see whether the test taker was tricked into thinking that the criticism in paragraph 2 is saying philanthropy actually worked to solve "social ills." If so test takers will eliminate choice D and never look back.

Philanthropists are not working to solve "social ills" in that paragraph; they are either having no effect or potentially worsening them. The key is to realize, despite the sentence saying the values the philanthropists helped instill in the work force were "perhaps" good values, that ensuring the dominance of one class over others is definitely not curing "social ills"--and with typical LSAT logic it's very likely worsening social ills.

Now having correctly interpreted what the philanthropists are seen as doing in that criticism, we are left open to the idea that those critics would also see the government as necessary to correct social ills because the philanthropists certainly weren't seen as capable of doing it. We of course can't infer for sure these critics saw the government as necessary, but that possibility is left open, and then it is confirmed by the evidence Mike and others have talked about--paragraph 3 where both critics are combined by the author and said to think the government is necessary. It's important to keep in mind that the question stem says "according to the passage" which means here "according to the author."

[Ejd5050]

For me the confusion arose out of my interpretation of the "modern" criticisms. I was looking at paragraph two as the first modern critique and paragraph three as a second. I failed to note that these should have been amalgamated.

The words "earlier criticism" made me think the first paragraph was not in fact a modern critique.

[ohthatpatrick]

Just to follow-up on the last couple comments:

Ejd5050, I see where the confusion came from. The key to getting these 2 main points of view straight on the first read is to really slow down for lines 4-6.

"Modern commentators have articulated two major criticisms ..."

With that setup, the next sentence begins "The earlier criticism is ..."

So we have to use those signposts to identify that we're getting the 1st of our two major criticisms in line 6.

When we get to line 16, we see we're getting our 2nd.

Paragraph 3 really starts to blur the two together under the common umbrella of "modern criticisms". It's a somewhat unusual structure, because the typical LSAT passage would probably just mention that there are 2 criticisms in the first paragraph, and then dedicate a body paragraph to each of the 2 criticisms (I think that's the structure you were expecting).

===

interestedintacos, that was a GREAT synopsis of the subtlety inherent in the 2nd paragraph and how the test writers can use that subtlety both to bait people into liking (A) on Q22 as well as to indirectly support (D).

[jasonleb1]

Doesn't line 46 negate D, though? It says, if I'm reading it correctly, that the argument put forward by modern critics asserts that the state was incapable of coping with the needs of the time. How is that not the polar opposite of what D is saying?

[blahsheep]

Doesn't line 46 negate D, though? It says, if I'm reading it correctly, that the argument put forward by modern critics asserts that the state was incapable of coping with the needs of the time. How is that not the polar opposite of what D is saying?

I don't think that line contradicts (D). Modern critics argue that Victorians resisted state control and focused resources on private philanthropies because of their vested interest or because the state was simply not capable of coping with the economic/social problems at that time.

Just because the government might not have been capable at that time doesn't mean that the modern critics thought the state wasn't necessary to cure social problems. This also doesn't contradict the earlier points made in the first paragraph either, that "these problems required substantial legislation action by the state." I don't think it's a contradiction for the modern critics to say "yes, the state might have been incapable of dealing with the social/economic issues then, BUT it was still necessary to cure the ills because 1. it was beyond the scope of small private efforts and/or 2. Victorian philanthropists were too self-serving."

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you might be hearing (D) through the lens of the Victorian philanthropists and seeing the contradiction there.

According to these criticisms, those Victorian philanthropists were thinking,
"This government is USELESS for curing economic/social ills.
Let's put our money into private philanthropy!"

That seems to go against saying "the government is NEEDED to cure these social ills!"

This question is about the commentators. The commentators think that Victorian philanthropists put money into private, rather than government, charities because either
1. the VP's were really puppetmasters, keeping the working class down
and/or
2. the government of the time wasn't quite set up enough to handle administering state-run charities, as it would be nowadays.

Remember the "Whig Fallacy" ---- our author is saying that these commentators automatically assume that the older Victorian private philanthropy was "an inferior prelude" to government-run philanthropy.

So you can read (D) as embodying the 2nd view in the context of, "Phew. Thank goodness we aren't still relying on that amateurish Victorian philanthropy."

And you can read 44-48 as, "Victorian philanthropy wasn't legit philanthropy. It was either a dishonest way of controlling the lower class, or it was an amateurish response by private individuals because proper government-run philanthropy had not fully developed yet."