Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S3 · Q15 Critic: Works of literature often

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Critic: Works of literature often present protagonists who scorn allegiance to their society and who advocate detachment rather than civic-mindedness.

Conclusion

Modern literature can damage individuals who appropriate an attitude of "I don't need to contribute to societal good" and damage society at large.

Evidence

Modern literature gives more sympathetic treatment (shows in a more positive light) protagonists who want to detach from society, rather than be engaged citizens.

Treating these recluses in this positive way suggests to readers that they should be unconcerned about contributing to society.

Evaluate

So the basic argument is that because modern literature "trains" its readers to think, "I should be less concerned about societal good", it damages the readers and it damages society.

Well, the second part makes more intuitive sense. If you get a bunch of modern lit readers to think, , that does seem like it would be damaging to society (this would only be good for society if people who wanted to help society did more harm than good).

But how does the first part work?

Why does it damage an individual person to say . I know that if I stopped being concerned about contributing to societal good, I would stop using Twitter (I mainly use it to get more informed about social problems), and that would probably benefit my mental health.

Goal

The big New Term in the conclusion is "damage individuals". How is the author assuming that modern literature damages individuals? By making them less concerned about societal good. So we're assuming something like, .

A correct answer could otherwise rule out an objection saying, .

15.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the critic's argument relies?

Some individuals in earlier eras
Too Strong
Too Strong: any modern individual Relative vs. Absolute: more / concerned This is not really related to our #1 priority, which is the gaping hole between "I'm less concerned about contributing to society" and "ouch, that attitude damaged me". This answer choice is saying the author had to assume that the individual person who cared the most about contributing to society must have come from some earlier era. There's no way the modern era could have the Top Dog. Some previous era had someone who outranks all modern people in terms of concern for societal good. Our author isn't making any judgments on what era has the Top 10 individuals most concerned about societal good. Our author is only saying, the effect modern literature has on some of its readers, to make them less concerned with societal good, hurts them and hurts society. The argument used "concerned" / "unconcerned" in an Absolute way, so the author has made no Relative judgments about "more / less concerned".
5% picked this
Correct
It is to the advantage
Why this is right
We were hunting for "If you're unconcerned with contributing, then it damages you as an individual". This is saying "if you're concerned, it advantages you." Said in conditional form, that would sound like an Illegal Opposite manipulation. But this answer choice is not conditional, so we wouldn't judge it that way. In a positive way, it's saying, "If the author thinks becoming unconcerned damages you, he must think it's better for an individual to be concerned with contributing." This is a soft way of saying that. If you think it's better for an individual to be concerned, rather than unconcerned, with contributing to societal good, then you obviously would agree that "it is to the advantage of at least some people that they be concerned". On Necessary Assumption, we can always ask ourselves, "If I negate this answer, would it Weaken the argument?" The answer that, when negated, most weakens is always the correct answer. This answer, negated (i.e. contradicted), would be saying "No one gets any benefit out of being concerned with contributing to societal good." That sounds like an objection. It's hard for the author to say that when readers become unconcerned about contributing that they've damaged themselves, if they never got any benefit out of being concerned.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
57% picked this
Some individuals must believe that
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: believe better than most Nothing in this paragraph was talking about individuals comparing their society to other societies and trying to reach the determination that their society was in the top 50% of societies.
2% picked this
The aesthetic merit of some
Out of Scope: aesthetic merit
The author never brings up anything relating to whether modern literature is good / bad / medium as art. She is only describing a consequence (a moral effect, if you will) that modern literature has, but none of her commentary relates to evaluating how good it is as art. Someone might think the film "Joker" is a great piece of art but still worry about its deleterious effects on society.
4% picked this
Modern literature is generally not
Too Strong: generally not as conducive
Our author is only saying that modern literature is not as conducive to societal good when it comes how modern literature treats protagonists that are detached from caring about society. But we can't generalize and say that the author thinks overall modern literature is worse for societal good. After all modern literature, she says, is distinguished from literature of earlier eras in part by its more sympathetic treatment of loners. But modern literature is probably also more respectful and representational of women and minorities, so the author may believe that on balance it's generally more conducive to societal good. Her conclusion isn't saying that "modern literature has damaged to society". It's saying "modern literature can have a damaging effect, when people appropriate this attitude of the cool, aloof loner that doesn't contribute to society."
31% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free