Critic: Works of literature often

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong5% picked this

   Some individuals in earlier eras were more concerned about contributing to societal good than is

   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%
2. B

   Correct57% picked this

   It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing

   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%
3. C

   Out of Scope2% picked this

   Some individuals must believe that their society is better than most before they can become

   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%
4. D

   Out of Scope: aesthetic merit4% picked this

   The aesthetic merit of some literary works cannot be judged in complete independence of

   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%
5. E

   Too Strong: generally not as conducive31% picked this

   Modern literature is generally not as conducive to societal good as was the literature

   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%