MCAT Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills Question 77: Answer and Explanation

Home > MCAT Test > MCAT critical analysis and reasoning skills practice tests

Test Information

Question: 77

5. What is the primary purpose of the passage?

  • A. To question the Derridian view of animals as Others to whom we owe an ethical responsibility, whether we are vegetarians or not
  • B. To critique, with the help of Derrida's philosophy, the central motivations of vegetarianism and to suggest a new basis for a discussion concerning how best to treat animals
  • C. To suggest that vegetarianism is fundamentally misguided since nobody can practice a completely cruelty free diet
  • D. To interrogate the notion of ethical purity and argue that such a state of being is impossible

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

B This is a Main Idea/Primary Purpose question.

A: No. The author does not question Derrida's views about animals but rather employs them to make his analysis.

B: Yes. This answer choice best captures the ideas presented in the passage and the purpose of the author's use of Derrida's philosophy. In paragraph 1, the author begins the discussion of vegetarianism's limitations by saying: "And if we follow the logic of Derrida's thought on the question of the animal, then it is necessary both to support vegetarianism's progressive potential but also interrogate its limitations." Paragraph 2 follows in kind, focusing on Derrida's views on the Other and how they relate to vegetarianism. The last sentence suggests a new way of approaching the issue: "[Within vegetarianism] the ethical question should not be 'How do I achieve an ethically pure, cruelty-free diet?' but rather, 'What is the best, most respectful, most grateful, and also most giving way of relating' to animals and other Others?"

C: No. The words "fundamentally misguided" are too extreme given the tone of the passage. For example, the author states: "it is necessary … to support vegetarianism's progressive potential" as well as to look into its limitations (paragraph 1).

D: No. This answer is too broad, since it does not address the idea of vegetarianism which is central to the passage. Furthermore, the author does not argue that ethical purity is never possible, but only that vegetarianism cannot itself be an ethically pure position (which relates back to the issue of the choice being too broad).

Previous       Next