Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S4 · Q21 Literary critic: There is little

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

Literary critic: There is little of social significance in contemporary novels, for readers cannot enter the internal world of the novelist's mind unless they experience that world from the moral perspective of the novel's characters.

Conclusion

There is little of social significance in contemporary novels.

Evidence

can't experience world can't enter internal from moral perspective → world of the of novel's characters novelist's mind

In contemporary novels, the (moral) transgressions are just spectacles, not events whose purpose is to be seen as the injustices they are.

Evaluate

Good Lord, argument, I want to award you some Reddit badge for "Least readable". This is not fun to digest. I'm relying a lot on stopping as I read and saying to myself where this is going / what I'll need to hear.

If I said, , there are two implicit assumptions there: 1. Ferris wheels don't go fast 2. If you don't confuse the body's senses, it's not fun.

Try it on the original first sentence: . What are the two assumptions?

1. In contemporary novels, you don't experience the world from the moral perspective of the novel's characters. 2. If you don't enter the internal world of the writer's mind, then there is little social significance.

The 2nd sentence (yes, shockingly, this is only two sentences) is trying to establish one of these negatives. It's saying

We would probably try to match this with #1 above. They're trying to establish that you don't experience the world from the moral perspective of the novel's characters.

They say that the transgressions committed (immoral actions) are not events whose purpose is to be seen as the injustices they are.

Goal

This would make me think we're headed towards,

But given how hard this feels, I'd be willing to consider other missing links, and I'm planning to mainly get rid of wrong answers by finding stuff that sounds Too Strong or Out of Scope.

21.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify the literary critic's argument?

  1. An artist who wants to

    Out of Scope: should

    Phew, a quick bailout with "should". The author doesn't use any normative language, so we're not allowed to be assigning her any normative assumptions. She is just describing contemporary novels as lacking in social significance. That doesn't necessarily mean that the author thinks that contemporary novels should change. I could describe how Starburst candy is devoid of nutritional value but not be assuming "Starburst should put more protein and vitamins in their candy".

    2% picked this

  2. A novelist who wants to

    Out of Scope: should

    Awesome, another answer with "should". The author doesn't use any normative language, so we're not allowed to be assigning her any normative assumptions. She is just describing contemporary novels as lacking in social significance. She doesn't need to make any assumptions about what "should" be the case.

    21% picked this

  3. A work of art is

    Weaker Trigger Match

    This is fairly close. It's saying doesn't engage moral → not socially sensibilities of audience important The conclusion is essentially saying can't experience world little of from moral perspective → social of novel's characters significance The outcomes are pretty interchangeable. If we know something is not socially important, then we can definitely support the idea that there's "little of social significance". But the trigger doesn't match. As an audience member, having your moral sensibilities engaged is very different from experiencing the world from the moral perspective of a character. Perhaps a character is having an affair, but they feel justified in doing so because they blame their spouse for a loveless marriage. They don't consider their affair wrong. An audience member experiencing the world from the moral perspective of that character would agree there's nothing wrong with the affair. But a different audience member might be repulsed by the affair and think that the character is totally wrong for betraying their spouse. That audience member still had their moral sensibilities engaged, but didn't experience the world from the moral perspective of the character.

    17% picked this

  4. If a novel allows a

    Reversed Logic

    This is the ol' Illegal Lightswitch move, where they flip both ideas. The argument was close to saying novel doesn't allow reader there is to understand justice from → not much point of view of victims social significance And this answer is just illegally flipping both ideas to get, if novel does allow → there is social significance

    14% picked this

  5. Correct

    Novels have social significance only

    Why this is right

    This is one of those original two assumptions we pulled out of the first sentence. It's weird that this correct answer is internal to the first sentence and doesn't really make use of the second one. I can't really remember another example of that. The word "for" in the first sentence (of FABS fame ... for, after all, because, since) shows that the first clause is a conclusion being supported by what comes after "for". The author is indicating that whether or not a novel has much social significance is related to whether or not readers can enter the internal world of the novelist's mind. The author's overall argument is trying to say that, when it comes to contemporary novels ... moral transgressions are not events whose purpose is to be seen as moral injustices, and thus you don't experience the novel's world from the moral perspective of the novel's characters and thus you can't cant enter the internal world of the novelist's mind, and thus there is little of social significance. This answer provides that last link.

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

    45% 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