Q21 - Critic: To be a literary classic a book must

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Inference (Must Be True)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Classic → Reveal significant thing about human condition
Unworthy of study → ~Reveal significant thing about human condition

Answer Anticipation:
These two statements have overlapping conditional statements (once we take the contrapositive of one), so they should be combined:
Classic → Reveal significant thing → Worthy of study
The correct answer will most likely either be: Classic → Worthy of Study; or Not Worthy of Study → Not Class

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Illegal reversal.

(B) Bingo!

(C) Half-reversal. Also, the LSAT isn't going to stake out a position against classic literature.

(D) Illegal reversal and half negation of the second statement.

(E) Illegal reversal and half negation of the first statement.

Takeaway/Pattern:
In a Must Be True question, look for conditional logic! It's frequently featured, and it gives you a process to work off of.

#officialexplanation

[jambam]

The stimulus' last sentence confuses me.

"Nothing that is unworthy of serious study reveals anything significant about the human condition"?

Doesn't the use of "Nothing" distort / negate the conditional statement which the sentence is intended to produce (Unworthy of study → ~Reveal significant thing about human condition)?

Wouldn't "Anything" be sensible instead?