Q20

[tzyc]

In the passage it says "Pocock's ideas have proved fertile when applied to England, they are more controversial when applied to the late-18th century U.S."
I know the question ask most likely agree, but doesn't this contradict with D? If it contradicts, how can it be the answer??
Also, is the "dichotomy" Pocock says in "On the one hand..." and "On the other hand..."? Or "rival versions of the 'virtue' central"?

By the way,
Would you categorize this passage as social science or art humanity? Social Science? Humanity? This passage was kind of hard to understand...

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

You're definitely on the right track.

The sentence you found
In the passage it says "Pocock's ideas have proved fertile when applied to England, they are more controversial when applied to the late-18th century U.S."
is definitely the weakness the author finds in Pocock's work.

What were Pockock's ideas? What was he applying to England that NOW he's trying to apply to late-18th US?

The 2nd paragraph discusses (lines 23-27) that most of Pocock's career was focused on the "conflict between rival versions of the 'virtue' central to civic humanism".

THIS is the 'linguistic dichotomy" that (D) refers to ... and, yes, the passage then explains that dichotomy by saying "on the one hand, Tories meant THIS by 'virtue' ... on the other hand Whigs meant THAT by 'virtue'."

In the last paragraph, Pocock portrays Jefferson as a Tory. The author meanwhile says that portrayal is inaccurate. The passage goes to acknowledge that the US had its own vocabulary and meanings ... thus, our author thinks that Pocock's insistence on using the Tory vs. Whig linguistic dichotomy to address Jefferson's political thoughts is a weakness in Pocock's work.

To answer your other question, from this section
Psg 1 is physical science
Psg 2 is arts/humanities
and
Psg 4 is law
so we'd have to classify this as Social Science (political science and history normally is).

[oyxy1111]

I have a concern for choice D. Is it a bit extreme to say Pocock's work "insists on a dichotomy" since according to the line 50 and following, he has admitted...he realizes he was wrong. I think this is an evidence for that he does not "insist on" the single dichotomy,
Can anyone tell me if I'm overreaching? Thanks for your help!

[nmalindzak]

I thought the same thing. He isn't insisting there is a single linguistic dichotomy because he admits a "counter language was probably as important" as civic humanism. Even admitting that there could "probably" be a language as important, he can still emphasize the overriding importance of civic humanism.

I thought C was a better answer choice because emphasizing seems less strong of a word than insisting....

[ohthatpatrick]

You're definitely raising valid concerns.

I think the test writers are differentiating between Pocock's "work", which is really discussed in 22-49, and Pocock's later reaction to criticism of his work.

Pocock's acknowledgement that the dichotomy might be be too limiting, that the counterlanguage of rights and liberties was probably also important, was only something that happened later, "AFTER promptings by Skinner".

So the author could still cite (D) as a weakness in Pocock's "work". What the last two posters have been observing is that Pocock, later in life, would have ALSO recognized that (D) was a weakness in his work.

To support (D), we have
lines 23-27: "for much of his career, he argued that 18th century thought should be interpreted as a conflict between rival versions of virtue"
lines 39-49: "Pocock's ideas are more controversial when applied to US ... his assertion that Jefferson's attacks simply echo the language of the Tory opposition ... is at odds with [stuff]."
lines 60-62: "the historian who, though guilty of some exaggeration .."

OTHER ANSWERS
(A) the author never objected to the term 'language'
(B) the author never complained that Pocock denigrates (speaks ill of) the role of analytic philosophers
(C) the author never complained that Pocock overemphasized humanism in 18th century English thought. (the author actually complements Pocock's analysis of 18th century England, calling it "fertile"). The author just doesn't think that the same schema fits what was going on in the US.
(E) again, the author never complains about Pocock's treatment of England. His complaint comes from Pocock's analysis of the US.