Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S3 · Q11 Literature professor: Critics charge that

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

Start practicing free

Literature professor: Critics charge that the work of C. F. Providence's best-known follower, S. N. Sauk, lacks aesthetic merit because it employs Providence's own uniquely potent system of symbolic motifs in the service of a political ideal that Providence—and, significantly, some of these critics as well—would reject.

Conclusion

The critics argument should be rejected (it's not legit to say that Sauk lacks aesthetic merit just because he stole his hero's style and used it for a political purpose his hero would reject).

Evidence

Sure, Sauk stole the style from his mentor and the mentor wouldn't approve of Sauk's politics, but no one has shown that his writings are any less subtle or powerfully crafted than those of his mentor.

Evaluate

The author is rebutting a position by conceding the points made in support of that position (yes, stole style and had potentially objectionable political views) but arguing that they're not sufficient to prove the conclusion because something crucial is missing.

In this case, the something-crucial is that the people claiming Sauk's writings don't have aesthetic merit haven't really delved into analysis of the writings themselves. They seem caught up in tangential concerns, whereas this author thinks we should evaluate the material itself.

Goal

This question stem already has the Conclusion part baked into the question stem. It's cueing us up with "on the grounds that", which always indicates we're referring to the evidence.

So we need the best match we can find for, .

11.

The literature professor argues that the conclusion drawn by the critics has not really been established, on the grounds that

  1. the claims made in support

    Contradicted

    The author grants the truth of the claims made in support of the critics' conclusion.

    2% picked this

  2. Sauk's work has aesthetic merit

    Bad Premise Match

    Although we might read this author's premise and think, "She seems to think that Sauk's work does have aesthetic merit", that idea is not written anywhere on the page. We need a match for "you all failed to show his writing isn't as good as Providence's".

    4% picked this

  3. these critics are motivated by

    Bad Premise Match

    The author's premise isn't impugning the political motivations of the critics. It's just saying, "What about the writing itself? You guys neglected to prove that his actual writing isn't as good as Providence's writing, which you guys seem to think is good."

    6% picked this

  4. the claims made in support

    Contradicted

    The author grants the supporting claims of the critics. She's saying, "I'll grant you both of your premises, but you still haven't shown X". This indicates that she isn't rejecting the argument because of the critics' premises. She's rejecting it because of X.

    24% picked this

  5. Correct

    the claims made in support

    Why this is right

    Well, this is mainly through elimination that we'd like this. Since our author is saying "granting the truth of your supporting claims, it has yet to be shown that these facts say anything bad about Sauk's writing". Since the critics are concluding that Sauk's writing lacks aesthetic merit, the criticism should be focused on the artistry, or lack thereof, of the writing. This author doesn't explicitly say that "whose style you copped" or "what political views you were hoping to serve" is irrelevant to aesthetic merit, but we can plug in a little common sense and interpret the author's words that way. It's kind of like someone arguing that Michael Jackson's Thriller is not a good album, since Michael Jackson was a very complicated public figure who had scandalous allegations levied against him. Someone might say, "I'll grant you he might have done a lot stuff wrong and been a weird guy; but that has nothing to do with whether or not this album is a good art." One final clue we can use to make ourselves like this answer more is that the author actually rejects the conclusion. If we were nervous that it felt too strong to say this author thinks the critics' supporting claims are irrelevant to their conclusion, it might help to remind ourselves that the author's argument basically sounds like this: I'll grant the critics the truth of their two supporting claims, but they've yet to show X. So their argument should be rejected. If the author thought the two supporting claims were at all relevant, then the author's conclusion would have probably been more tentative / hedged, sounding like "you've only 60% convinced me; I still need to know X", rather than "this argument has 0% persuasiveness to it; it should be rejected."

    Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    64% 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