Critic: To be a literary classic a book must reveal something significant about the human condition.
Statements
conditionals (must, nothing)
Literary → Reveal something significant classic about the human condition
Unworthy of → Doesn't reveal anything serious study significant about human condition
Evaluate
Our goal in Inference questions is to try to combine 2 or more claims in order to derive some other thought. Here, there are only 2 claims, so we know which two to focus on.
We otherwise use Overlapping Concepts as a signal about which claims we should try synthesizing. Here, both claims involve the concept of whether or not something "reveals anything significant about the human condition".
On Must Be True, the most common pattern is to see conditional logic and need to chain it together with other conditional statements, or to have a conditional rule that we can apply to some provided fact.
Here, both claims are conditional and they have an overlapping ingredient, so it's very likely they chain together. We use the conditional logic indicator words to help ourselves diagram the rules correctly.
"Must" = introduces the right side of the arrow. "Must" indicates necessity, and the right side is called the necessary condition.
"Nothing that is A is B" = "No A's are B" = "All A's are ~B"
Goal
In order to chain these together we need to contrapose either rule. We end up with this chain.
Literary → Reveals something → worthy classic significant serious study
Unworthy → Not reveal → Not literary serious study significant classic
The correct answer will likely connect the 1st to the 3rd idea. At least one incorrect answer will probably offer us an illegal reversal or negation of these relationships.