PT127.S4.P4.Q23

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The author doesn’t end by describing inconsistencies between the two proposals. She doesn't show how some parts of the first proposal contradicted parts of the second proposal. Rather, she ends by describing a successful later proposal that recalled the first two proposals.

The author doesn’t end by describing the differences between two proposals for education reform. Rather, she ends by describing a successful later proposal that recalled the first two proposals.

The author doesn’t end by discussing why change required less of a break with custom and religious tradition. The later proposal that was successful was not necessarily less of a break with the way children had been educated up until that point. This proposal still involved public schools for women, no fees for education, and compulsory attendance for all students, which were breaks with tradition that were part of the first two proposals. The author does not characterize these changes as less of a break with traditional education.

Although the author does note that the later proposal was "rooted in a long philosophical, political, and pedagogical tradition," this doesn't imply that the later proposal was rooted in the way traditional education was handled. There's a difference between breaking from traditional education (which is what (D) is about), and having intellectual and egalitarian roots in the first two failed proposals (which is what "philosophical, political, and pedagogical tradition" refers to).

The author doesn’t end by modifying how the aims of the first two proposals are characterized. She doesn't, for example, suggest that the first two proposals really weren't trying to achieve egalitarian aims. Rather, the author ends by describing a later proposal that recalled the first two.