PT101.S4.P4.Q26 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Two impressive studies have reexamined Eric Williams' conclusion that Britain's abolition of the slave trade in 1807 and its emancipation of slaves in its colonies in 1834 were driven primarily by economic rather than humanitarian motives. ████████ ██ ████████ █████ █████████████ ███ ███ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██████ █████ █████████ █████████ ██ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████ █████████

Two Challenges to Williams' Conclusion · That British abolitionist movement was primarily driven by economics.

Williams argues that the slave colonies were becoming a drag on the British economy. That's why Britain abolished slavery, not because they thought it was wrong. But two studies question that conclusion.

███████ ████████ ████████ █ ████ ████████ █████ █████████ ███████████████ █████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ██████████████ ████████ ███ █████████████ ███ ████████ ███████████████ ██ ███████ █████████████ █████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ███████████ █████████ ███████████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ █████████ █████████████ ███████ ████████ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ███████ ███

1. Drescher's View · Populism drove abolition

Drescher downplays economics and morality. Instead argues that it was populist political activism that drove abolition.

Author Concession / Skepticism · Drescher's explanation incomplete

Author thinks that Drescher doesn't explain how England could have mobilized such popular support.

█████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ████████ ████████ ████ ██ █████████ █████████ ███

2. Eltis' View · Partially supportive of Williams' conclusion

Apparently Eltis does answer the question that the author faults Drescher for not answering...

2. Eltis' View · Disagrees with Drescher

Eltis disagrees with Drescher's view that the British traditions of liberty powered abolition.

██ ███ ████ ██████████ ████████ ████████ █ ███████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ █ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██████ ████████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ███████████████ ██ █████████████ ███████ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ██ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ██████ █████ ███████████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████████ ███ █████████████████ ██ ██████████ ███

2. Eltis' View · Economics drove abolition

Eltis thinks that "want creation" made slave labor inappropriate and counterproductive.

2. Eltis' conclusion · Williams was partly right, partly wrong

It is economics that drove abolition; just not what Williams thought. The slave colonies' economies were fine. But slave labor wasn't good for the broader economy of the British empire.

Passage Style

Critique or debate

Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC)

26.

The information in the passage ████████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ █████ ████

Question Type

Implied

Other’s perspective

Eltis’ argument is that abolition gained widespread support because voluntary labor came to seen as economically better for Britain, in ways that appealed to employers and laborers alike. Drescher’s argument is that widespread populist activism drove abolition. So they at least seem to agree that support was widespread, even if they don’t agree about the underlying reasons for that support.

people of all ███████ ██ ███████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████

Both agree. Drescher notes that support for abolition “cut across lines of class.” And Eltis’ entire argument is an answer to the question of why people of all classes supported abolition: voluntary labor and higher wages led to “want creation” and stronger consumer markets, which appealed to employers and laborers alike.

28%

the motives behind █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ █████████ ████████

Drescher disagrees. His argument rejects economics as the explanation.

31%

the moral vision ██ █████████████ ██████ █ █████ ████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████

Drescher disagrees. His argument rejects the moral vision of abolitionists as the explanation.

19%

British traditions of ███████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████████

Misdirection. Eltis (and the author) think this about Drescher. Drescher’s argument is that British traditions of liberty are important in explaining how abolition came about. He doesn’t suggest that he, or anyone else, is idealizing Britain’s pro-liberty views. But Eltis disagrees; he points out how Britain wasn’t actually all that pro-liberty.

13%

Britain's tradition of █████████ ████████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████

Eltis disagrees. His argument is that Britain’s pro-liberty political activism doesn’t explain the abolition of slavery; rather, abolition came about because voluntary labor came to be seen as more economically beneficial.

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 101 - Section 4 - Passage 4 - Question 26

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 101 - Section 4 - Passage 4 - Question 26

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?