***LSAC licensing regulations prohibit us from showing the passage***

...most ambitious... ambitious book on the history of science yet written

Donna Haraways Primate Visions is the most

from a feminist perspective, embracing not only the scientific construction of gender but also the interplay of race, class, and colonial and postcolonial culture (5) desc. of book with the Western construction of the very concept Primatology is a particularly apt vehicle of nature itself. Primatology is a particularly apt vehicle for such themes because primates seem so for such themes because primates seem much like ourselves so much like ourselves that they provide that they provide ready material for scientists (10) ...radical departure. ..beliefs conscious and unconscious projections of their ready material for scientists conscious and challenges unconscious projections of their beliefs about nature and culture. trad. views Haraways most radical departure is to about nature and culture. challenge the traditional disjunction between the active knower (scientist/historian) and the passive (15) ...the traditional disjunction between the active knower object (nature/ history). In Haraways view, the desire (scientist/historian) and the passive object (nature/ history). A traditional view to understand nature, whether in order to tame it or to preserve it as a place of wild innocence, is based thats being challenged? on a troublingly masculinist and colonialist view of Antithesis passage! nature as an entity distinct from us and subject to our (20) control. She argues that it is a view that is no longer how politically, ecologically, or even scientifically viable. She proposes an only approach that not only recognizes She proposes an approach that not diverse human actors (scientists, government officials, recognizes diverse human actors as contributing laborers, science fiction writers) as contributing to (25) An approach the to our knowledge of nature, but that also our knowledge of nature, but that also recognizes author has described as recognizes the creatures usually usually subsumed under the creatures subsumed under nature (such as primates) as active participants in crating that nature as active participants... ambitious and apt knowledge as well. Finally, she insists that the perspectives afforded by these different agents cannot (30) be reduced to a single, coherent realitythere are necessarily only multiple, interlinked, partial realities. This iconoclastic view is reflected in Haraways unorthodox writing style. Haraway does not weave the many different elements of her work (35) into one unified, overarching Story of Primatology; they remain distinct voices that will not succumb style refLects to a master narrative. This fragmented approach to historiography is familiar enough in historiographical theorizing but has rarely been put into practice by (40) historians of science. It presents a complex alternative ...equally innovative... to traditional history, whether strictly narrative or narrative with emphasis on a causal argument. Haraway is equally innovative in the way she incorporates broad cultural issues into her analysis. (45) Despite decades of rhetoric from historians of science about the need to unite issues deemed internal to science (scientific theory and practice) and those considered external to it (social issues, structures, and beliefs), that dichotomy has proven difficult to set (50) many will aside. Haraway simply ignores it. The many readers in fInd her work whom this separation is deeply ingrained may find her diffIcult discussions of such popular sources as science fiction, movies, and television distracting, and her statements concerning such issues as nuclear war bewildering (55) To accept her approach one must and digressive. To accept her approach one must shed a great many assumptions about what properly shed a great many assumptions belongs to the study of science. about what properly belongs to

Kind of a big deal...

the study of science.

June 2000: Passage 3

PASSAGE SUMMARy
A book. On monkeys. We here at Blueprint are sold. The author wastes no time hopping on the monkeybook bandwagon, either, stating that Haraways book is the most ambitious book in its genre (feminist history of science, though wed market it in the Monkey section of B&N). After a brief description, the author again hops in with some attitude, stating that primatology is a particularly apt field for the themes of Haraways work because of their similarities to ourselves. The author definitely gives us a lot of opinion on Haraways work, so lets wait until we know exactly what her work entails and then fill it in as our main point. Also, since she seems to be breaking from the traditional approach, that will serve as our thesis. More strong, opinionated language in this second paragraph, stating that Haraways most radical departure from tradition is to mix the views of the active knower (scientist, politician, James Cameron) and the passive object (monkeys, but the lamest description of monkeys ever). After slamming the traditional view, we get an explanation of how Haraway does this in the second half of the paragraph. We should make a note, as we know there will probably be a question on how she accomplished this feat. In short, we need to get the perspective of the monkeys as well as our own into the narrative. You already had us sold, Haraway; no need to keep adding to the awesomeness. We now have how Haraway split with tradition, so we can fill in our Primary Structure. After dropping inconoclastic on us (go look it up and add it to your vocab list), the third paragraph is all about Haraways unorthodox writing style, which certainly fits her unorthodox views (lines 32-33). There is no single narrative of primatology; there are only distinct voices (lines 33-36). This isnt uncommon in history writing, but not so much when it comes to the history of science (lines 3739). If there are any questions on writing or works of history, we know now where to find it. Not one to go more than a paragraph without hopping in, the author uses the last paragraph to talk about how Haraway is equally innovative in her inclusion of broad cultural issues. We get some examples of these inclusions (lines 52-53), which the author tells us might cause some to find her work bewildering and digressive (lines 54-55), but we

close off with the author telling us that we must shed [our] assumptions about what belongs in a science book. And we here at Blueprint are willing to do that for a book about monkeys. In summary, the author introduces a book of which she has a positive view and then describes how it breaks from tradition in viewpoint, writing style, and topics of discussion.

Primary Structure: antithesis

We have two points of view in the passage, making it an Antithesis passage. Traditional historians of science view nature as a passive object that is distinct from humans, who are active knowers (lines 13-15). These historians also believe that science consists of a single narrative (lines 38-39). Donna Haraway, on the other hand, proposes that the creatures we study actively participate in creating our knowledge of nature (lines 25-27) and that the different perspectives are distinct, fragmented voices (lines 29-31, 35-36). The author characterizes Haraways work as innovative (line 43), ambitious (lines 1-2), and a radical departure (line 12), while her choice of topic is an apt vehicle (line 7). The author definitely has a positive view of Haraways work. history of science

knower vs. object one story traditional historians of science

creatures participate distinct voices haraway

secondary structure
There are no secondary structures present in this passage.

Passage OverVIEW main point

The main point of the passage is as follows: Haraways Primate Visions is a radical departure from traditional history of science works because Haraway proposes that creatures participate in the creation of knowledge and that there is more than one single truth or narrative. Although this conclusion is not

June 2000: Passage 3

explicitly stated in the passage, we know its the main point because the author characterizes Haraways stance as a radical departure from tradition (line 12), and the claims of creature participation and multiple narratives are the heart of her position. We also know the author views this authors work positively, thus aligning herself with Haraways approach.

conclusion, a Main Topic question just asks for the focus of the passage. In this case, the passage is talking about Haraways book. This leads us to (C). Haraways book is a proposal to reform prevailing views, and the author primarily discusses content and style. Therefore, this is a perfect fit. (A) The author briefly mentions gender, class, and the Western view (lines 3-7), but this passage is about how Haraway diverges from the common roles played by these features, not the features themselves. (B) While the traditional view is brought up in this passage, the author mentions it to show how innovative Haraways approach is. The passage is primarily concerned with the new approach, not the traditional one. (D) While the book is from a feminist perspective and considers gender roles, its not specifically about women in science. We know it talks about the male view of science as well. (E) While the author mentions that Haraways writing style reflects her theoretical position (lines 32-33), this author doesnt discuss books on the history of science in general. Additionally, we dont know that her writing style is an effect of her theoretical position they could both be caused by something else, such as her unique view of the world.

Primary purpose
As is common with many Reading Comprehension passages, the primary purpose of the passage is to present an alternative to a traditional approach.

Author's attitude
The author is present in the passage, as we see starting in line 1. The author states that Haraways book is the most ambitious one on the history of science (lines 1-3), a radical departure from traditional history of science (line 12), and innovative (line 43). Along these lines, the author claims that acceptance of Haraways approach requires abandonment of assumptions about the study of science (lines 55-57), and that many will find her approach difficult (lines 50-55). Also, the author states that primatology is a fitting means of studying this topic (lines 7-11). Clearly, the authors buying what Haraways selling. (And, for the record, so are we here at Blueprint. Though well buy anything with monkeys on the cover).

question anticipation
This passage included some high-level language, so expect questions on that. Also, since the passage spent so much time analyzing the innovative nature of Haraways work, expect questions that require you to distinguish between the traditional method and the new method.

Question 14: Authors attitude

The author definitely lays down the attitude in the passage. The book is described as innovative (line 43) and a radical departure from tradition (line 12), but the author also claims that many readers will find it distracting, bewildering and digressive (lines 53-55). In other words, its a big break from the norm, but some folks will have trouble with it. (A) gives us just that. The characterization of exciting fits the characterization of the book as ambitious (line 2). (B) While it can be argued that the author admires Haraways work, its more because of how original it is, not because Haraway did a lot of research. Also, primarily in this answer choice is very strong; we get several reasons for the admiration, but none are denoted as the most important.

and now, on to the questions...

Question 13: Main Topic

This rare question type shows itself again! While a Main Point question deals with the

June 2000: Passage 3

(C) Far from ground breaking?! Are you kidding me? The author thinks the exact opposite of this (lines 1-57; seriously, its everywhere). (D) Less than convincing? It seems to me the author of the passage is drinking the grAPEflavored Kool-Aid Haraway is selling. Yes, we just went there. (E) The author never criticizes the book, so the characterization of half-hearted has no support.

Question 16: Viewpoint

We need to find out what Haraway would think about scientists in the field. Using our tags from the mark-up, we find a couple of places in the passage that can support an answer. In the first paragraph, scientists are said to project their own beliefs about nature, and primates provide ample material for such projections because of their similarity to us (lines 7-11). In the second paragraph, the scientists are said to be traditionally considered separate from the nature they study (lines 12-15). We need to find an answer choice supported by one or both of these statements, and we find it in (D). Since primates are stated as ready material for these projections (line 9), the scientists who study them are probably more likely to project their beliefs. (A) They ALL will record the same things, whether studying monkeys or sea snails? Thats a bit strong, especially since we know the scientists are more likely to project on to monkeys. (B) In other words, the scientists studying creatures other than primates will get stuff wrong. Well, just because theyd likely project less of their beliefs doesnt mean theyre more or less wrong. In fact, this suggests they might be more accurate because theyre less biased and less likely to project their own reactions on to the animals they study. (C) Similar to (B), less projecting doesnt mean less accurate. These two answer choices are almost exactly the same, and they cant both be right. (E) In the traditional view, theres a distinction made between active scientists and passive nature (lines 12-15), but that line isnt drawn between different types of scientists.

Question 15: Inference

So what can we say about the traditional scientific approach to nature? Well, in the start of the second paragraph, the author calls Haraways view a challenge to the traditional disjunction between the active knower (scientist/historian) and the passive object (nature/ history). (lines 12-15) In other words, when it comes to science, the active scientist and passive nature have traditionally been considered to be separate. (E) states this perfectly. (A) The troublingly masculine and colonialist view of nature tried to understand nature in order to tame it or to preserve it (lines 15-18). We dont know which of the two they preferred. (B) What makes Haraways book such a radical departure is her challenge to these traditional aspects (lines 12-15). (C) Traditionally, primates are some of the creatures usually subsumed under nature, (lines 25-26) so they arent traditionally considered active. (D) What is this, the DaVinci Code? No such conspiracy theories are suggested here. While Haraways approach may recognize these actors, it is never stated that the traditionalists are concealing their roles (we dont even know if they ignore them in their works).

Question 17: Specific Reference

To find what is referred to as the iconoclastic view (line 32), check the sentence that immediately precedes it. Big surprise - Donna Haraway holds the view, insist[ing] that the perspectives afforded by these different agents cannot

June 2000: Passage 3

be reduced to a single, coherent reality - there are necessarily only multiple, interlinked, partial realities (lines 27-31). We want an answer choice that says just this, and we find it right away in (A). (B) Haraways iconoclastic view is that there is no single Story of Primatology (lines 33-35). (C) Haraway does believe this, but this is a different view of hers thats stated earlier in the second paragraph (lines 15-21), and not the view referred to as iconoclastic. (D) The masculinist and colonialist view of nature led to the view of nature as a separate entity to be controlled. Thats a different view than the one being referred to here. (E) This view of traditional history is mentioned by the author later in the third paragraph (lines 40-42), so this isnt Haraways view from earlier that were looking for.

Question 19: Specific Reference/ Authors attitude

The author has a lot to say about Haraways work, but historiography means history writing (hence the graphy), and using our tags we find that writing is discussed in particular in the third paragraph. Haraway resists a master narrative by keeping different elements of her work as distinct voices (lines 35-36). While this approach to historiography is familiar enough in theory, it isnt commonly practiced by historians of science (lines 37-39). Since the question is asking for what is true instead of what is strongly supported, we need to find this specific reference in the answers. We get it in (E). (A) As much as the author talks about how unorthodox Haraways work is (line 33) and how innovative it is through the incorporation of social issues (lines 43-44), we dont know if shed agree that its particularly effective. Thats an equivocation we dont want to make. (B) We know its common in historiographical theorizing (lines 37-38), but we dont know if its put into practice in a lot of areas. (C) As in (A), we dont know how effective she finds the different approaches. However, this answer choice seems to prefer the traditional approach, and we know the author appreciates Haraways work. (D) Maybe not historians of science (lines 38-39), but we dont know if other historians use this approach commonly or not. Thus, we cant support this answer choice.

Question 18: Implication

To find an example of traditional history, head to line 40 to see what were talking about. Its either strictly narrative or narrative with emphasis on a causal argument, (lines 41-42), and it stands in contrast to Haraways complex alternative (line 40) of keeping different perspectives as distinct voices (lines 35-36). So, we need to find a onevoice, historical narrative. We get this in (A). Its a chronological history with one area of focus, and there arent multiple and distinct viewpoints. This matches our anticipation. (B) To boldly go where no primate has gone before. This is a prediction of the future, not a history of the past. (C) So these scientists agree to disagree. Without any resolution, we dont have the single narrative were looking for. In fact, we have multiple, distinct viewpoints, which is a hallmark of Haraways approach. (D) Sure, theres only one view here, but like (B), this isnt a history, but rather an advocacy. (E) Once again, this is not a narrative history, just a bunch of notes from an experiment.

Question 20: Role

We need to find why the author used the term rhetoric, and its not going to be so that the LSAT could ask us a vocab question. We need to figure out the point of what the author was saying in that part of the passage. Haraway is innovative (surprise, surprise) in her incorporation of broader issues (lines 43-44), and even though there has been plenty of rhetoric about uniting internal and external topics,

June 2000: Passage 3

that dichotomy has proven difficult to set aside (lines 45-50). In other words, historians of science have been saying that the topics should be united, but that hasnt actually been done very easily. This leads us directly to (C); easier said than done. (A) Well yeah, clear and effective writing would be nice, but the author never really talks about that. And throwing around obscure words like iconoclastic and rhetoric doesnt help the case for this answer choice. (B) The author never argues that historians of science need to start studying language. This answer choice is a sucker choice; the LSAT is assuming you know enough about the definition of rhetoric to know it has to do with language, and its hoping thats as far as you get in your thought process. But remember to always go back and check the context! (D) Excessive concern for form? Thats very strong. Additionally, these scientists are paying lip service to including different issues in their work. That sounds like a concern for content more than form. (E) The author is referring to the rhetoric of the historians of science; thats the group with which Haraway is being contrasted. So were not characterizing Haraways writings here. And were not wasting any more time on this passage! Alright, time to take a break and go watch some videos of monkeys on YouTube. We could spend all night on that

June 2000: Passage 3