Q14 - Some theorists aruge

[smiller]

Question Type:
Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
At first glance this argument might not seem too complex. We have an argument made by "some theorists," followed by the word "but," which leads us into the main argument. The main argument is contained in the last two sentences.

Premise:
Literary criticism cannot be value-neutral.

Conclusion:
Some theorists have a mistaken idea about the appropriate goal for literary criticism.

The challenge lies in understanding what exactly is the "appropriate goal" mentioned in the conclusion. We know, from the first sentence, that some theorists believe that critics should strive to present value-neutral criticism. This is the goal being discussed by the theorists. The second sentence explains why the theorists believe this should be a goal. Our conclusion is that this is not an appropriate goal—meaning literary critics should not strive to present value-neutral criticism.

Answer Anticipation:
Even with this understanding of the conclusion, the gap in the argument might not be obvious. The key is to recognize that the conclusion is about whether something should or should not be done. Even if we accept the premise that literary criticism cannot be value-neutral, do we have to accept that literary critics shouldn't strive toward that goal? You might believe that no one can tell the truth 100% of the time, but that still might be a very worthwhile goal to strive for. We're looking for an assumption that states this isn't the case: if it's impossible to be value-neutral, there's no reason to attempt to be.

Correct Answer:
(B)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This at best does the opposite of what we need. This supports the theorists' view, that literary criticism should be value-neutral. We're trying to conclude that the theorists are mistaken.

(B) This is correct. It tells us that if the premise is true—that literary criticism cannot be value-neutral—then critics should not try to be that way.

(C) This is out of scope. A comparison between works that critics like and works that they don't is not relevant.

(D) This is also out of scope, as it doesn't address the core of the argument. We need an answer which directly supports the conclusion that critics should not attempt to be value neutral. Choice (D) doesn't do that.

(E) This answer, like the last two, is out of scope. We aren't trying to conclude that some critics influence readers less than others.

Takeaway/Pattern: When a conclusion uses "borrowed language," meaning it refers back to something discussed earlier in the stimulus, take time to understand this connection and the precise claim being made in the conclusion.

#officialexplanation

[mauitearose888]

Could anyone help why B is the answer ?

Here is my analysis:
From the argument
exposing the meaning of literary works without evaluate them --> enable own judgement

criticism can't be value-neutral --> the goal is not to enable own judgement


What B says is:
criticism can't be value -neutral -> criticist should not value neutral

I dont' see how B fits in the logic flow. Thank you !

[sumukh09]

Hey

For this argument we have a logical sequence as follows:

Literary criticism (LC) cannot be completely value-neutral ---> Theorists mistaken about what is an appropriate goal for literary criticism

Condensed, this reads: LC cannot be completely value-neutral ---> Goal is mistaken

B is basically a stronger rewording of the premise-conclusion relationship; the conclusion is that these critics should reassess what an appropriate goal is for literary criticism and the support they use is that LC cannot be completely value-neutral.

B says if it's impossible to be completely value neutral then critics should not even try, or read differently, critics' goal about literary criticism is mistaken so they shouldn't strive to do something they are mistaken about!

[maryadkins]

Great explanation of the core and of (B), thanks!

I hope this helped clarify why (B) is correct.

As for the others:

(A) doesn't match up with our conclusion; we want something linking the impossibility of being value-neutral with it never being a good idea.

(C), (D) and (E) don't relate closely enough to our core"”always a clear way to knock them out!

[ying_yingjj]

I am still not convinced about B although I know A,C, D, E don't make sense, but B is not making much sense either.

Any more discussions or ideas on this one?

[ying_yingjj]

The reason why I am not convinced by B is because, when I add B as an assumption back to the argument, the conclusion does not seem to be logical:

Premise: LC should be NV, but LC can not be completely NV.

Assumption: if LC is impossible to be NV ---> should not try NV

Conclusion: Thus, goal for LC is mistaken.

How is that logical? Please explain.

[gaheexlee]

Fundamentally, the gap is: if x can't be y, you shouldn't bother with y.

Premise: If x can't be y= LC cannot be value-neutral

Conclusion: You shouldn't bother with y= (Theorists are mistaken), and so should not bother to be value-neutral.

(B) links "can't" therefore "shouldn't."

The logic here is similar to the question found in PT 35, Section 1, #23

[LukeM22]

So, the takeaway from this thread is that, for LSAT purposes, "X as a goal is inappropriate" and "you should not even try to do X" are the equivalent?

[ZarkaS555]

My explanation for why D and E are wrong is as follows: Both D and E point to the potential flaws of being value-neutral. The stimulus says that being value neutral requires exposing the meaning but not making any judgments on it. Both D and E seem to state that both the acts of avoiding judgments and providing barebones explanation of a meaning will have negative ramifications for the readers. BUT we don't know that the point of literary criticism is to help readers understand. That would require an additional assumption not provided by the information in the stimulus.

This makes B the only contender.

[ohthatpatrick]

To answer the previous-previous poster's question, yes
should strive to = should try to = appropriate goal

To the previous poster, I just want to make sure you have the right, unique mindset for Sufficient Assumption.

If I said
13 + x ≥ 18

And the question was ...
Which of the following, if we assume it as a value for x, would make the above true?

We would just solve the original inequality and know that we were looking for
x ≥ 5


By this metaphor, answer (B) is like this
B) x = 5

And answers (D) and (E) are like this
D) numbers are an interesting concept, in that they only refer to an agreed upon convention, not to a universal truth, so any declarative statements made about numbers are inherently confusing ontologically


I don't need to think about what's wrong with those answers. They don't say x ≥ 5

You're probably correct in sentiment about what you're saying in regards to (D) and (E), but I want to make sure you understand that Sufficient Assumption isn't gist-y / impressionistic / conversational.

It's just math. We solve up front for what we need and then we just find that answer. We don't need to actually practice explaining why the other answers are wrong (in a sense). They're all wrong because they're not right. The math doesn't work.

Hope this helps

[DeckS974]

I think B as the answer is ridiculous! It is merely a restatement of the original argument! And you know that as a rule restatement is not an assumption that supports the argument! Correct answer should be E because E says that one reason why critics cannot be value-neutral is because they will lose readership to critics which provide value-ladened criticism. THAT is an assumption that supports the conclusion that value-neutral criticism is not a appropriate goal!