Q15 - Critic: Works of literature

[yusangmin]

hello!

E is just really bugging me out.

ok so we know modern literature sympathizes with such protagonists, and this suggests to readers that they should be unconcerned with societal good. Ok its implied that this is NOT good. so in the least we can assume that he thinks modern literature is NOT conducive to societal good.

is it wrong because it never implies that literature of earlier eras ARE conducive....
if so ... thats kinda weird if lets say

lets say modern literature level of conduciveness is negative 100
and then lets say earlier literature conduciveness is 0...
then...................uhhh theyre both not conducive at all?

i dunno the answer overall just seemed like a leap and B seemed better but...ARGH
hate when this happens i cannot pinpoint a particular reason that its bad, it just feels
like a crappier one than B.

thank u!

[bbirdwell]

Let's have a look at the analysis. Remember, working "assumption" questions, you need to be really clear about the premises and their link to the conclusion. As usual, getting this question correct comes down to a close reading of the conclusion.

Premises:

1. Works of lit often have Protags who scorn allegiance to society and advocate detachment rather than civic-mindedness.
2. Modern lit, unlike earlier lit, more frequently treats these Protags sympathetically.
3. This treatment suggests that one should be unconcerned with contributing to societal good.

Conclusion:
Modern lit can damage individuals who take this attitude, as well as society.

Where are the big leaps in logic? Well, "damage" and "individual" each show up in the conclusion and don't appear anywhere in the premises, so it's likely that the correct answer will have something to do with one or both of these ideas.

We might predict at this point that the correct answer will connect "damage to individuals" or "damage to society at large" to being "unconcerned with societal good," which is sort of the end of the trail of logic in the premises.

The reason (E) is not correct is because the author doesn't have to assume it in order to draw his conclusion -- the conclusion stands perfectly without it. Earlier literature is still quite free to be even LESS conducive to societal good (worse for society, we might say) than modern lit. This wouldn't affect the claim that "modern lit CAN damage society."

Remember that modern lit outdoes earlier lit in this regard only with concerns to treatment of the protagonist. Nothing is mentioned about "general" conduciveness -- this is quite a specific instance. Furthermore, even that is not assumed -- it's stated.

(B) is correct because the author must in fact make this assumption in order to correctly draw the conclusion, namely the part regarding "damage to individuals." Again, we can test this by negating it. If it is NOT to the advantage of some individuals to be concerned with contributing to societal good, then how can it be damaging to those individuals not to contribute?

This answer choice makes the necessary connection between "not contributing to societal good" and "damaging individuals." If it's damaging to an individual NOT to contribute, as the argument concludes, then there must be some positive value to an individual TO contribute.

Can you think of other questions where you've seen this kind of trap answer choice before? It happens all the time...

#officialexplanation

[lhermary]

It was between D and B and I guessed wrong...

Why is D wrong?

THanks

[adarsh.murthy]

quoting bbirdwell:

"(B) is correct because the author must in fact make this assumption in order to correctly draw his conclusion, namely the part regarding "damage to individuals." Again, we can test this by negating it. If it is NOT to the advantage of some individuals to be concerned with contributing to societal good, then how can it be damaging to those individuals not to contribute?

This answer choice makes the necessary connection between "not contributing to societal good" and "damaging individuals." If it's damaging to an individual NOT to contribute, as the argument concludes, then there must be some positive value to an individual TO contribute"

what about the case(...and the reason why I discarded this option): it's damaging to an individual NOT to contribute, as the argument concludes, then there may or may not be some positive value to an individual TO contribute"

"there must be some positive value to an individual TO contribute": I think this is not necessarily true..

Where am I wrong?

Thanks!

[alana.canfield]

what about the case(...and the reason why I discarded this option): it's damaging to an individual NOT to contribute, as the argument concludes, then there may or may not be some positive value to an individual TO contribute"

I just did this problem and had the same question - I thought answer (B) saying it is to the advantage of some individuals to be concerned about society went too far (I thought the correct way to phrase it would have been it is either neutral for them OR to their advantage). This type of reasoning would imply the right answer in (B)-like format is something like this: "It is not to the disadvantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good". But I still have a problem with even this answer, because the passage talks about what happens if you are unconcerned only, and doesn't make any statement about what happens if you are concerned. We have no idea what advantage/disadvantage you might have if you are concerned. For me the clearest answer would have been : "Being unconcerned about contributing to society can damage yourself and society are large".

Honestly I still am not satisfied that (B) is a necessary assumption, but the best I have done so far is come up with a very weak rationale for (B). If we take the last sentence about modern literature damaging individuals who have an unconcerned attitude as meaning that there definitely are individuals who currently have an unconcerned attitude and are currently disadvantaged, then we can say definitively that there is an assumption that these people would be at an advantage if they were to start being concerned with contributing to societal good. So far this is the best analysis I have for making sense of (B). But it is very weak because it requires an assumption itself - that individuals have actually appropriated the unconcerned attitude as mentioned in the last sentence (it could be no nobody has this attitude).

Any other interpretations?

EDIT:

I think I've answered my own question, after thinking more about what the first person to respond had said. The mistake I made is this: normally when I think of the opposite of something, like the opposite of "black", I think "not black", which means any number of colors. But in this situation, the opposite of "concerned" is "not concerned", which IS unconcerned - this means there are only two states: being concerned and being unconcerned. The logic is: if you are not unconcerned, then you are concerned. And if you are not concerned, then you are unconcerned. Not being one NECESSITATES that you are the other. That means you MUST be either concerned or unconcerned. And since being unconcerned makes you "disadvantaged", you MUST always be at a relative disadvantage/advantage. Because if you unconcerned, you are necessarily disadvantaged. But if you are NOT unconcerned, then you are necessarily concerned. And if you are concerned, you do not have that disadvantage, which means you have a relative advantage.

It is difficult for me to put this into formal logic, but here is my best try:
we start out with the obvious assumption:
Unconcerned --> disadvantaged (damaged is disadvantaged)
contrapositive is : not disadvantaged --> not unconcerned

as described above, due to the binary nature of this situation, (where ~X necessitates X) we know that :
not unconcerned --> concerned
not disadvantaged --> advantaged

putting it together:
advantaged --> concerned

Therefore, it is to the advantage of some individuals to be concerned, because being concerned is necessary if you want to have an advantage.

[shodges]

Could some one explain the advantage vs. damage point brought up by the previous post a little better? I'm definitely confused about it, too.

[nflamel69]

Geeks please help

Just to side-step from the question a little, can E be a valid inference answer? I still don't think so since it said is generally not as conductive as earlier ones. The only premise we know is that it offers more frequently of these views, but what if there are other qualities that make the modern lit more conductive and can cancel them out?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Just to side-step from the question a little, can E be a valid inference answer? I still don't think so since it said is generally not as conductive as earlier ones.

That's correct, we could not infer answer choice (E). Just because modern literature damages society, we cannot make the relative comparison about whether modern literature or literature of earlier eras was more damaging. We are only given one factor contributing to such potential damage. Other factors could have made it so that literature of earlier eras were even more damaging.

Could some one explain the advantage vs. damage point brought up by the previous post a little better? I'm definitely confused about it, too.

The issue whether damage represents a disadvantage. The answer is yes. It will always be true that some sort of damage represents a negative consequence.

In order to conclude from the premise that modern literature suggests to readers that they should be unconcerned about contributing to societal good that modern literature damages individuals who appropriate this attitude, we need to connect "not contributing to the societal good" with "damaging individuals who appropriate this attitude."

We can do this by saying one is damaged when one is unconcerned with contributing to societal good. Or as Alana pointed out, we can express this in contrapositive form, it is to one's advantage to be concerned with contributing to societal good. What I like most about answer choice (B) is the weakness through it is expressed. It doesn't say this is true for everyone, but "at least some people."

Hope that helps!

[arghuman82]

Would (E) be a necessary assumption IF the answer choice read: "Modern literature is not ALWAYS as conducive to societal good as was the literature of earlier eras" instead of "generally not as conducive"?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey arghuman82,

Such an answer choice still does not represent a Necessary Assumption. The reason is that we learn about one way that modern literature may damage society at large--creating readers who are unconcerned with contributing to societal good. But there could be other ways that literature affects society for the both good and bad, and we aren't given information that would allow a complete comparison between modern literature and previous literature.

Something else, and maybe most importantly. Answer choice (E) and the argument's conclusion are too similar. They're both getting at whether modern literature benefits or damages society--we should be looking for the gap between the evidence (about readers unconcerned with contributing to societal good) and the conclusion damaging society).

Lastly, be on the look for these "comparison traps." The answer choice takes two relevant issues and creates a tempting answer choice by relating them to each other in a way that is totally unnecessary.

Hope that helps!

[ptewarie]

The #1 reason why there is a lot of confusion about this problem is the failure of many to truly understand what the conclusion of the author is. Don't skim! Read carefully.

The author concludes:
Modern literature can be damaging to THOSE WHO APPROPRIATE the attitude fostered by modern literature.

So in formal logic terms:
Those who appropriate attitude of modern lit-> damaging.

This is DIFFERENT THAN simply saying that
modern literature is damaging( If modern lit-> damaging)

Because of this qualification, the author( as in all formal logic conclusions of assumption questions)
would have to assume that:

the sufficient cannot occur without necessary and if necessary doesn't occur, sufficient does not occur.

so :

Those who appropriate attitude of modern lit-> damaging
Not damaging --> not appropriate attitude of modern lit.



an easy question would have an Answer choice in more concrete terms. However, because we are given explanations of what entails "damaging" and modern lit and previous lit, we can use substitution. since Modern lit involves:
" being unconcerned with contributing to societal good"

we can instead say:

unconcerned with societal good-> damaging
not damaging --> not unconcerned with damaging societal good


This is B, to the dot.


Answer choice E is attractive, but it would work better for an inference question than for a NECESSARY ASSUMPTION, which HAS TO BE TRUE for argument to work.

Even if modern lit IS AS conducive to societal good as traditional lit, the argument would still hold because the author is basing his conclusion on "those who appropriate the attitude of modern lit." as opposed to modern lit itself.

These are two different things.

Let's use an example:

Tennis is an individualistic game. Soccer is team sport. Those people who are attracted to tennis primarily b/c of it beign an individualist endeavour can become loners and this is damaging to their self-esteem.


Answer choice E is saying:
Tennis is not as conducive to team as soccer is.

Answer choice B is saying:
it is good for some people to not be attracted to sport for it being as an individualist endeavour.

E is not only pretty much a stated portion of the premise( so it would not be an assumption which has to be unstated) but it also necessary for argument to be true.
IT WOULD BE CORRECT if it were just tennis causing low self-esteem. But it's not tennis but an indirect point connected to it.

[ttunden]

Can someone explain why A is wrong?


The only reason I can think of is that it is too strong to assume. The any makes it too strong. What else though? What are the other reasons to eliminate A.

I thought it would be necessary because there is a comparison being utilized in this argument from Modern Literature to regular literature. Then it says modern literature can damage individuals who appropriate this attitude. So the author is assuming that people of the past were not unconcerned about contributing to societal good. So, I picked A. I notice the "any" now but as stated earlier, what are the other reasons to eliminate A.


Thanks

[513852276]

Irrelevant comparison. Works of literature and modern literature can both damage society and individual.

Can someone explain why A is wrong?


The only reason I can think of is that it is too strong to assume. The any makes it too strong. What else though? What are the other reasons to eliminate A.

I thought it would be necessary because there is a comparison being utilized in this argument from Modern Literature to regular literature. Then it says modern literature can damage individuals who appropriate this attitude. So the author is assuming that people of the past were not unconcerned about contributing to societal good. So, I picked A. I notice the "any" now but as stated earlier, what are the other reasons to eliminate A.


Thanks

[pewals13]

I guess if we have to assume something avoids damage, it must be assumed that avoiding that thing is an advantage?

Otherwise couldn't it be the case "being unconcerned with societal good" can be damaging but not necessarily to ones advantage.

Pooping one's pants is damaging, is it to one's advantage to avoid such an accident? I guess so.

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree that the language shift we get in the correct answer is annoying, if not troubling.

It seems like there are 3 categories of things: advantageous, disadvantageous (damaging), and neutral.

The author has to assume that "being unconcerned about societal good is damaging to the individual."

Does that equate to saying "being concerned about societal good is advantageous to the individual"?

Typically, LSAT does not like that "fake binary". What about a middle ground? Couldn't it be that being concerned is neutral, but being unconcerned is damaging?

However, on Strengthen questions we routinely pick correct answers that don't really ADD much to the argument, they just PROTECT the argument from damage.

Given the argument:
Bob is crying. Thus, Bob must be cutting onions.

It would strengthen the argument to say:
Bob did NOT break up with his girlfriend this morning.

It would clearly HURT the argument to say:
Bob DID just break up with his girlfriend this morning.

It might feel like the opposite of that HURTING statement is just neutral, but LSAT definitely considers "ruling out an objection" to be a strengthener.

We ultimately just live with (B) because the other answers are way worse, and the negation of (B) hurts the argument quite a bit. If there's no benefit to being concerned with societal good, then how could becoming UN-concerned with societal good damage you?

== other answers ==

(A) the truth value of the conclusion is only about whether Modern Lit does/doesn't damage individuals and society. So a comparison to earlier eras is irrelevant.

(C) Extreme language abounds. Some people must believe their society is better than most before they can be concerned. The author's logic doesn't hinge on this weirdly strong claim.

(D) The conclusion has nothing to do with judging aesthetic merit.

(E) Same problem as (A). The issue being debated is "whether or not Modern Lit does damage". There is no comparison in that issue, just an assessment of Modern Lit on its own.

[JovyT883]

I am a bit confused about forming the logic in (B).

Shouldn't "It is to the advantage of some individuals" be a necessary condition while
"they be concerned with contributing to the societal good" be a sufficient condition?

Thanks a lot!

[snoopy]

I am a bit confused about forming the logic in (B).

Shouldn't "It is to the advantage of some individuals" be a necessary condition while
"they be concerned with contributing to the societal good" be a sufficient condition?

Thanks a lot!

It's not a conditional statement ('if/then'), so you don't diagram it with sufficient and necessary conditions.

Question - what is the takeaway/pattern? I understand that the flaw is a comparison flaw/term shifting, but because it's a necessary assumption question, is there another strategy for this kind of question?

[ohthatpatrick]

One of the most powerful strategies for both types of Assumption questions (and Principle-Support) is always asking yourself, "Is there a NEW GUY in the Conclusion?"

When LSAT is testing "missing logic links", as opposed to "out of the box, overlooked considerations", you usually see half of the missing link appear as a NEW term/idea in the Conclusion.

90% or more of Sufficient Assumption (and Principle-Support) questions are testing those "missing logic links", and about 50% of Necessary Assumption questions are.

I remember the first time I did this question just reacting to the word "damage" in the conclusion, like, "Whoa ... when were we ever talking about damaging anything?"

When you find a NEW GUY, you try to figure out what concept in the evidence was its surrogate match. The closest negative you can find in the evidence to a concept like "damage" is "unconcerned about societal good".

[weid247]

One of the most powerful strategies for both types of Assumption questions (and Principle-Support) is always asking yourself, "Is there a NEW GUY in the Conclusion?"

When LSAT is testing "missing logic links", as opposed to "out of the box, overlooked considerations", you usually see half of the missing link appear as a NEW term/idea in the Conclusion.

90% or more of Sufficient Assumption (and Principle-Support) questions are testing those "missing logic links", and about 50% of Necessary Assumption questions are.

I remember the first time I did this question just reacting to the word "damage" in the conclusion, like, "Whoa ... when were we ever talking about damaging anything?"

When you find a NEW GUY, you try to figure out what concept in the evidence was its surrogate match. The closest negative you can find in the evidence to a concept like "damage" is "unconcerned about societal good".

There is a problem in this question.

Premise: though advocating detachment was mainstream of literature, modern lit give more empathetic than old to this detachment.
Premise: if more empathetic, then suggest unconcern to social good.
Missing premise: if suggest unconcern to social good, then damage the individual.
Conclusion: the modern lit damaging the individual and the society.

The missing premise is the assumption the author rely on. Is it the same or we can infer from the missing premise to the choice B the concern to social good is benefit for individual? It is hardly.

From If unconcern to social good then damage individual, we only can infer the contrapositive if it is to the advantage of individual, then concern to social good. We can’t get the inverse if concern the social good, then it is to the advantage of individual, or it is the advantage of individual that concern to attribute to the social good.

I hope someone can solve my question.