Hello,
I could not find an answer for #26, and I think I misinterpreted the passage structure.
For me,
Paragraph #1: Criticism 1 = Private philanthropy in Victorian society was obsolete since it could not solve real social problems as state-sponsored charities.
Paragraph #2: Criticism 2 = Victorian philanthropy was a self-serving exercise.
Paragraph #3: Refute criticism 1 by saying we should not compare Victorian philanthropy to state-sponsored welfare at that time since the latter is a developed version of the former. People chose private philanthropy merely because the state was incapable of coping with social needs.
Paragraph #4: Refute criticism 2 by saying Victorian philanthropists did help the poor, even though philanthropy is not the sole purpose.
Based on the structure above, I think the correct answer would be "two related positions are discussed, and then each is subjected to criticism"
Could you plz tell me where I got it wrong? Thank you.