Official Passage Outline & Map -
Victorian Philanthropy
What aspect of the broad Topic, philanthropy in the Victorian era, most interests the author? What, in short, is the Scope? Lines 612 reveal it: the modern criticism of that philanthropy. Paragraph 1 explains the earlier charge that it really was obsolete, and paragraph 2 the more recent charge that it was selfserving and at the expense of the downtrodden rather than for their benefit. Interestingly, the author holds her temper for the longest timereporting the criticism objectively well past the first two paragraphsbut she can do so no longer in paragraph 3. Starting with her description of the critics assumption as the Whig fallacy, she begins to make her Purpose clear in that she wants to redeem the Victorian philanthropists from these charges. Paragraph 4 vindicates them, and the last sentence stands neatly as her Main Idea about the Victorians who gave money to the poor: they were pretty admirable, all things considered.
Map:
Paragraph 1: Criticism: Phil. obsolete
Paragraph 2: Criticism: Phil. self-serving
Paragraph 3: Faulty assumption of critics
Paragraph 4: Defense of Victorian phils
Official Explanations -
Q1 OA: D
Spoiler: :: "OE Question 1"
As weve seen, this passage can really be divided into two overall ideas: the criticisms of Victorian philanthropists and the authors rebuttal of those criticisms. Only choice (D) includes both the modern critiques of Victorian philanthropy and the authors refutation of them.
(A) The choice gets off to a good start, but we know from lines 1012 that Victorian philanthropy was ultimately unsuccessful. This is a distortion of the authors argument.
(B) This sentiment is true according to the passage, but focuses on a detail from paragraph 1 and paragraph 3.
(C) We dont know anything about modern critiques of many institutions, just those of Victorian philanthropy.
(E) The choice restates the social control thesis from paragraph 2. Not only is this too narrow, its a sentiment that the author disagrees with.
(A) The choice gets off to a good start, but we know from lines 1012 that Victorian philanthropy was ultimately unsuccessful. This is a distortion of the authors argument.
(B) This sentiment is true according to the passage, but focuses on a detail from paragraph 1 and paragraph 3.
(C) We dont know anything about modern critiques of many institutions, just those of Victorian philanthropy.
(E) The choice restates the social control thesis from paragraph 2. Not only is this too narrow, its a sentiment that the author disagrees with.
Q2 OA: D
Spoiler: :: "OE Question 2"
Locating the relevant text could be difficult here, as both modern criticisms encompasses most of the passage. But this question is not dissimilar to a Logical Reasoning question in which two people are talking and were asked, Which of the following would both speakers agree with? Such questions, you may recall, can be approached in an indirect way by our rejecting any choice that fails to apply to both speakers. So for question 22, if we scan through the text of paragraph 1 where the earlier criticism is discussed, we see that Victorian philanthropy was allegedly obsolete because the social problems of the day required state action. As such, anything that doesnt mention that fact can be rejected.
(A) Dishonorable motives might be read into the second criticism (paragraph 2), although the word departs from the language of the passage and should cause you some pause. The earlier criticism, however, doesnt consider the philanthropists motives at all, so (A) cannot be what we seek.
(B) This choice focuses exclusively on the second criticisms claim that the philanthropists were selfserving. Again, this element in the second criticisms argument just never appears in the first ones.
(C) Complacency and condescension? The author uses neither of these terms while describing the two criticisms claims. Note that these Hot Words appear in paragraph 3that is, after the two criticisms have been fully described.
(D) This one is tough to spot, but remaining aware of the topic and scope can help immensely here. In the first lines of the passage (12), philanthropy is defined as the volunteering of private resources for humanitarian purposes. The first criticism explicitly addresses the issue of intervention by the state in lines 1012. Then, in paragraph 3, the author encompasses both criticisms under the heading of modern critics and claims that the modern critics are wrong to think that Victorian-era philanthropy can only be understood as an antecedent to the era of statesponsored, professionally administered charity. Well, if both of the criticisms commit the same fallacythat is, assuming that philanthropy preceded the era of state-run givingthen they must agree that solving social problems required state intervention. And thus (D) must be correct.
(E) The futility of efforts by private individuals echoes the first critics charge that philanthropists were unable to address the issues of the industrial age, but enhance their social status is an allusion to the second criticisms focus on the self-serving motivations of Victorian philanthropists. In other words, (E) cobbles together pieces of each criticism instead of finding what is true of both of them, and (E) therefore becomes a classic example of a faulty use of detail combined with an unhealthy dose of distortion.
(A) Dishonorable motives might be read into the second criticism (paragraph 2), although the word departs from the language of the passage and should cause you some pause. The earlier criticism, however, doesnt consider the philanthropists motives at all, so (A) cannot be what we seek.
(B) This choice focuses exclusively on the second criticisms claim that the philanthropists were selfserving. Again, this element in the second criticisms argument just never appears in the first ones.
(C) Complacency and condescension? The author uses neither of these terms while describing the two criticisms claims. Note that these Hot Words appear in paragraph 3that is, after the two criticisms have been fully described.
(D) This one is tough to spot, but remaining aware of the topic and scope can help immensely here. In the first lines of the passage (12), philanthropy is defined as the volunteering of private resources for humanitarian purposes. The first criticism explicitly addresses the issue of intervention by the state in lines 1012. Then, in paragraph 3, the author encompasses both criticisms under the heading of modern critics and claims that the modern critics are wrong to think that Victorian-era philanthropy can only be understood as an antecedent to the era of statesponsored, professionally administered charity. Well, if both of the criticisms commit the same fallacythat is, assuming that philanthropy preceded the era of state-run givingthen they must agree that solving social problems required state intervention. And thus (D) must be correct.
(E) The futility of efforts by private individuals echoes the first critics charge that philanthropists were unable to address the issues of the industrial age, but enhance their social status is an allusion to the second criticisms focus on the self-serving motivations of Victorian philanthropists. In other words, (E) cobbles together pieces of each criticism instead of finding what is true of both of them, and (E) therefore becomes a classic example of a faulty use of detail combined with an unhealthy dose of distortion.
Q3 OA: A
Spoiler: :: "OE Question 3"
The author disagrees with the Whig interpretation, and does so rather emphatically. Choice (A), strong disagreement, matches this perfectly.
(B) Too tentative, not negative enough. Our author is not only skeptical of the two criticisms that she discusses in the passage, shes downright dismissive of them.
(C) The author is certainly not amused and theres no evidence of cynicism.
(D) The author is not indifferent to this interpretation and bland is too bland in its tone.
(E) A 180: utterly positive instead of utterly negative.
(B) Too tentative, not negative enough. Our author is not only skeptical of the two criticisms that she discusses in the passage, shes downright dismissive of them.
(C) The author is certainly not amused and theres no evidence of cynicism.
(D) The author is not indifferent to this interpretation and bland is too bland in its tone.
(E) A 180: utterly positive instead of utterly negative.
Q4 OA: D
Spoiler: :: "OE Question 4"
The author certainly does examine modern evaluations of Victorian philanthropy. One would wish that (D) communicated her strong dissent from those evaluationsdoing so would make (D) more on the moneybut theres no getting around the fact that (D) is the only choice that takes the scope of the passage into account.
(A) There are two criticisms of Victorian philanthropists, which are themselves critiqued, not just defined. Moreover, in the course of the text several terms are definedphilanthropy, social control thesis, Whig fallacyand none of those definitions is in and of itself the key purpose.
(B) A 180. The author is attacking the theorists and defending the Victorians.
(C) The only chronological development in the passage is the brief description of the two criticisms as earlier and later, and narrating is too neutral to match up with our authors tone at all.
(E) The workers of the past are mentioned only in passing.
(A) There are two criticisms of Victorian philanthropists, which are themselves critiqued, not just defined. Moreover, in the course of the text several terms are definedphilanthropy, social control thesis, Whig fallacyand none of those definitions is in and of itself the key purpose.
(B) A 180. The author is attacking the theorists and defending the Victorians.
(C) The only chronological development in the passage is the brief description of the two criticisms as earlier and later, and narrating is too neutral to match up with our authors tone at all.
(E) The workers of the past are mentioned only in passing.
Q5 OA: E
Spoiler: :: "OE Question 5"
Here, social control theorist points us to the second paragraph, and we can further narrow our search to the philanthropists motives, which the critics deemed self-serving.
(A) Lines 2223 make it clear that high social status and economic gain were interchangeable to the Victorians; they could not possibly be driven more by one or the other. This choice is a classic example of an irrelevant distinction.
(B) This choice is half right, half wrong. The passage mentions philanthropists attempting to instill values in the working class (2931), but states that their goal in doing so was a more productive labor force and certainly not to raise the working class to the level of the managing class.
(C) The social control theorists did not think the Victorian philanthropists were basically wellintentioned. Quite the contrary.
(D) We cannot be sure whether the poors intellectual status was of any interest to the philanthropists, on the social control theorists view. We can be sure that on that view, any help the philanthropists gave the working class would have to have stringsnot present in (D)attached.
(E) Whether the philanthropists goal was social status or control of the working class, they certainly (in the theorists view) desired from the working class some end beyond their meansi.e., their philanthropy. (E) is right on the money.
(A) Lines 2223 make it clear that high social status and economic gain were interchangeable to the Victorians; they could not possibly be driven more by one or the other. This choice is a classic example of an irrelevant distinction.
(B) This choice is half right, half wrong. The passage mentions philanthropists attempting to instill values in the working class (2931), but states that their goal in doing so was a more productive labor force and certainly not to raise the working class to the level of the managing class.
(C) The social control theorists did not think the Victorian philanthropists were basically wellintentioned. Quite the contrary.
(D) We cannot be sure whether the poors intellectual status was of any interest to the philanthropists, on the social control theorists view. We can be sure that on that view, any help the philanthropists gave the working class would have to have stringsnot present in (D)attached.
(E) Whether the philanthropists goal was social status or control of the working class, they certainly (in the theorists view) desired from the working class some end beyond their meansi.e., their philanthropy. (E) is right on the money.
Q6 OA: A
Spoiler: :: "OE Question 6"
In an Organization of the Passage question, the correct answer must match the entire passage, piece by piece, in the correct order.
Only (A) is a perfect match, and thus our correct answer.
(B) Theres no synthesis of the two theories in the passage, and its unclear whether these two schools of criticism are mutually exclusive anyway. (The very existence of question 22 suggests that they are not.)
(C) Rather, two positions are given, and a single evaluation of both follows.
(D) Answers can give away their flaws by counting them out. We can watch for the number of things mentioned in an answer choice, and match them up to the passage. What are the three examples?
(E) There are two theories outlined, not just one.
Only (A) is a perfect match, and thus our correct answer.
(B) Theres no synthesis of the two theories in the passage, and its unclear whether these two schools of criticism are mutually exclusive anyway. (The very existence of question 22 suggests that they are not.)
(C) Rather, two positions are given, and a single evaluation of both follows.
(D) Answers can give away their flaws by counting them out. We can watch for the number of things mentioned in an answer choice, and match them up to the passage. What are the three examples?
(E) There are two theories outlined, not just one.