Q26

[RachelK18]

I was able to narrow this question down to options B and D, dismissing the others as follows:

A) Nothing is being DEFENDED here, the author opinion is conspicuously absent
C) THEORETICAL POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT are not explored, and the introduction of GOALS is not mentioned in the text; additionally, the thrust of the selection focuses on Gilman's relationship to the more activist strand rather than the an extended comparison of the two
D) Aging, DEFENSE misses the mark, though seeing it twice gave me pause, but additionally, the less activist Social Darwinists are not REJECTED

B) I was thrown off by the "role played in the controversy" line. Now looking back I recognize that the first sentence declares she "played an important role in the debate...." While the passage goes on to describe Gilman's approach at length, it seemed too narrow. In fact, in lines 40-41, the text declares "Gilman was not merely involved in an intellectual debate."

I ended up choosing E) as the passages discussed the broader theory of Social Darwinism. I now see that that neglects to address the debate, though B) seemed equally ill-equipped to expand beyond that debate.

Am I overlooking something? Why is E less correct than B?

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm with you on the painful down to 2, with B and E.

For (B), I was not cool on a first read with 'controversy', as I don't remember hearing anything so dramatic.

For (E), I was unclear whether the passage began by focusing on Social Darwinism as a general type of scientific theory. I thought I remembered the passage being primarily through the lens of Gilman. (E) is making her seem like a subsidiary concern.

When I went back to research those qualms, I saw that to support 'controversy' in (B), I'd have to live with "debate" in line 4 and 40.

And for (E), my suspicions were correct: this passage is centered on Gilman throughout.

I think of debate as a milder form of disagreement than 'controversy', but since (B) is saying "an intellectual controversy", we don't need to interpret it the same salacious way we normally think of controversy (e.g. "the controversial lyrics of Eminem's new track" ) Also, in lines 7-9, it says that "intellectuals ... argued about the interpretation of Darwin's theory"

Meanwhile, for (E), the emphasis just seems off. It makes Gilman seem like a sideshow, subordinate to the main goal of introducing a theory.

If we dig deeper there are more problems:
- what is the general type of scientific theory we're talking about?
SOCIAL DARWINISM?

First of all, I don't think social darwinism is really a scientific theory. It's more, as (B) describes, "a CONSEQUENCE of a scientific theory (evolution)".

Secondly, there were two types of social darwinism identified in the first paragraph, so we can't call Gilman's type of social darwinism a "GENERAL type of scientific theory".

And if we said "well, the general type of scientific theory is Gilman's type of social darwinism", then the 2nd half of the answer choice which emphasizes HER VERSION of that theory would become redundant. She didn't have a unique version. She just sided with one half of the social darwinist camp.

Also, in comparing (B) to (E), which did you feel more like the passage gave us:
- a description of the role she played in the social darwinist debate
or
- a DETAILED presentation of her version of social darwinism

There really aren't enough details to qualify as a detailed presentation (33-38 seem like the closest). We basically found out that her writings were widely read and discussed, that she considered it an ethical responsibility to do meaningful work, and that she was an activist in trying to break the mold of traditional roles for women.

Hope this helps.

[AviS649]

Another way to eliminate E is by focusing on its language. Gilman's theory was not a variation on a "scientific theory." It was a variation on how a scientific theory (that is, Darwin's) was applied to "social ideology." I personally wouldn't say that Social Darwinism was a scientific theory, but a sociological theory inspired by the implications of a scientific one.

[abrenza123]

I know this sounds like a very obvious question, but when LSAT writers say "role played by" what do they mean?? Is there synonymous/equivocal terminology that LSAT writers also use for that phrase??

[ohthatpatrick]

In this context, i.e. an RC answer choice, there's no customary language for talking about the role played by something.

Just think of what conversational synonyms you would potentially accept, if we said "What role did you play in Trump's election?"

- what part did you play?
- did you have any causal influence on it, one way or the other?
- in what ways were you related to / connected to Trump's victory?
- when people think of Trump's election, in what sense would you be relevant?

It's a pretty malleable expression.

It's also in the thesis sentence (lines 1-5). "Charlotte played an important role in the debate about the theories of Darwin and their application to society".

[HughM388]

Another way to eliminate E is by focusing on its language. Gilman's theory was not a variation on a "scientific theory." It was a variation on how a scientific theory (that is, Darwin's) was applied to "social ideology." I personally wouldn't say that Social Darwinism was a scientific theory, but a sociological theory inspired by the implications of a scientific one.

That's well put—but I don't know if I'd necessarily agree. Describing Social Darwinism as a variation on a scientific theory wouldn't be too far off the mark, and I don't know if we'd require that it be inspired by the implications of a theory as much as it could, much more simply, be inspired by the theory itself.

Nonetheless, if we're going to quibble over meanings in this way we could most certainly eliminate (B) by pointing out the ineluctable fact that "debate" in no way, shape, or form connotes "controversy." Unless we're reaching the point where wet is dry, war is peace, and poverty is wealth, etc., etc.

[XiaoranZ794]

I also narrow down to B and E, and end up choosing E. I'm quite uncomfortable with the word "consequence" in B. I don't think it's a consequence, I would rather call it an application. "consequence" infers that the Dawin theory naturally has its implication on sociology. But in line 6, "Darwin's theory of evolution did not directly apply to social ideology, but various intellectuals translated his ideas into social language" Does "consequence" has the meaning of "application"?

[Misti Duvall]

I also narrow down to B and E, and end up choosing E. I'm quite uncomfortable with the word "consequence" in B. I don't think it's a consequence, I would rather call it an application. "consequence" infers that the Dawin theory naturally has its implication on sociology. But in line 6, "Darwin's theory of evolution did not directly apply to social ideology, but various intellectuals translated his ideas into social language" Does "consequence" has the meaning of "application"?

I agree application would probably be a little better, but consequence isn't too far off. RC questions almost always ask for the answer that most fits, which means the right answer is usually not perfect. And the passage is not an introduction to a general theory, so we can eliminate answer choice (E).