LSAT 153 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q22

RC Question 22 Explanation

DISCUSSION: There are two parts to this argument. The first two paragraphs show that determinism was wrong. But the third paragraph shows we yearn for it, and we must replace it. The author says perhaps we could replace it by focusing on the unique events of history.

This focus on replacement disqualifies several wrong answers: those that merely discuss why grand theories are wrong.

___________

1. This is incomplete. The author isn’t just saying “determinism is outdated”. They’re arguing in the third paragraph for how we can replace it.
2. This only accounts for paragraph 2. The main point included the idea that determinism is something we yearn for an we must replace it.
3. This completely ignores paragraph 3. It’s not enough to dismiss grand theories. The author argued in the third paragraph that we need a new understanding of history focussed on specific events.
4. CORRECT. Honestly this is a hard answer to pick, because contingency is a rare word. It’s not a word I’ve seen used much on the LSAT before: contingency means future events that can’t be predicted with certainty. In other words, history that unfolds by contingency is the opposite of the history of grand theories, which used universal laws.
    
   You may not have known that word, but you should have noted it in paragraph 3, line 45. It comes after “but”, which shows it is an important structural sentence for the author. They are saying we must relinquish grand theories and restore “a sense of historical contingency”. So whatever “historical contingency” means, you should have noted that it means the opposite of grand theories. So this answer captures both ideas: Grand theories are wrong, and instead we should listen to the author’s theories about history, which involve “contingency”.
    
   I want to be clear. When I say you should have noted that word, I mean that in the sense that LSAC expected you to find this question hard because you didn’t know what it meant. This question exists to specifically test whether you noted that the unknown word “contingency” in the passage was nonetheless important. They’re getting trickier with their questions, so you have to read for structure and note and words that seem important but you don’t understand.
5. This is the most tempting wrong answer. It dismisses grand theories, but mentions why people liked them. If the passage had only been an evaluation of grand theories, this could be right.
    
   But that wasn’t what the author was about. In the final paragraph, the author made a proposal for how to replace grand theories. We clearly yearn for them, so the author suggests replacing them with history focusses on specific facts.