If a novelist is popular he or she can vividly imagine large numbers of characters, each with a personality and attitudes that are completely different from those of the others and from those of the novelist.
Statements
conditional (If)
popular → can imagine lots of characters novelist w/ traits different from writer's and capable of empathizing with people who have diff goals and have some doubts about real value of own desires
causal (so)
Being capable of empathizing with people who have diff goals will lead to someone having doubts about the genuine value of their own desires.
Evaluate
Must Be False questions usually provide a correct answer that contradicts a conditional statement, or that contradicts an available inference.
Here, we learned three facts that are true about popular novelists. We could potentially infer that (or any combo).
They could contradict this by saying stuff like:
If they go the route of contradicting the conditional, then we'll hear something like: .
The pasta detail is filler meant to obscure the fact that they are triggering the conditional (popular novelist) but then not delivering on the outcome (capable of empathizing).
We indicated that "so" is operating causally here. That's not common, but conclusion indicators do sometimes act as causal indicators.
He fell off the roof and thus broke his leg. He is sick and so will not be joining us. He got the vaccine and therefore doesn't wear a mask any more.
Goal
Find an answer that contradicts what we read. Anything out of scope is automatically wrong. Illegal reversals and negations are not the same as contradictions. Bad inferences ≠ must be false.