Q15 - Speaker: Like many contemporary critics

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Sufficient Assumption

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Smith isn't aware of the true meaning of her own words.
Evidence: Assuming Smith is correct, "the true meaning of an author's statements can be understood only through insight into the author's social circumstances".

Any prephrase?
On Sufficient Assumption, start with the claim you're trying to prove and ask yourself what we were told about these ideas in the Evidence (if there's any new term/idea that was NOT discussed in the evidence, it automatically must be in the correct answer).

We need to prove that Smith isn't aware of the true meaning of her words. We were given a conditional rule about what it takes to "understand true meaning of statements". Close enough! Let's use that rule.

The rule says "If you don't have insight into an author's social circumstances, you can't understand the true meaning of her statements." We want to prove that Smith doesn't understand the true meaning of Smith's statements.

So we need to establish the trigger for that rule: "Smith doesn't have insight into Smith's social circumstances".

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:
A) This doesn't match the trigger of the rule, so it's useless for proving the consequence of the rule. (Sniff test: "important" came outta nowhere)

B) This matches the trigger!

C) This doesn't match the trigger, which is about insight into social circumstances.

D) Doesn't match trigger. This is a total word blender. We cared about whether he had "insight" into an author's circumstances. This answer is talking about whether a theory is "insightful". That's a completely different subject matter.

E) Doesn't match trigger. (Sniff test: "not always" is super weak, but correct answers to Sufficient Assumption are almost always black and white)

Takeaway/Pattern: We know the conclusion is the final idea because it's the last in a chain of thinking. "we could apply this to Smith's statements" .. thus "if she's right, blah blah blah" ... this in turn suggests "Smith isn't aware of true meaning". There is a lot of fluff in the middle here making it harder to find the Main Conclusion and hoping to distract students from finding the usable rule provided in the first sentence. Along the way, this author actually makes a nec vs. suff error. Smith says "Don't know circumstances, can't understand true meaning", and then the author interprets this as "do know cirumstances, can understand (at least partially) true meaning". None of that needs our attention. We have to prove "Smith is not aware of true meaning" and we were provided with a conditional rule that allows us to say "Thus, not aware of true meaning". That should attract our attention.

#officialexplanation

Can you explain to me why B is correct here?


Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a sufficient assumption question. So we need an answer choice that in conjunction with the evidence provided will prove the main conclusion to be true.

We have several pieces of evidence but not all of them are utilized in arriving at the conclusion.

We know that the true meaning of an author's words can be understood only through insight into the author's circumstances.

TMU ---> AC

The argument goes on to conclude eventually that the author did not have an understanding of the true meaning of her words.

~TMU

the assumption here is that the author did not have insight into the author's circumstances.

The stuff in the middle that represents an intermediate conclusion appears to be bait placed there to distract you from attempting to prove the "main" conclusion.

TMU ---> AC

-------------
~TMU

Assumption:

~AC

Notation Key: TMU = true meaning understood, AC - know the author's circumstances

[lhermary]

I found D tempting. Why is it wrong?

Is it because of the 'understanding of meaning'

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question! Let's go through the Incorrect Answers:

(A) does not suggest that Smith does not have insight into the author's circumstances. This compares the relative importance of the two issues (insight into the author's circumstances and an understanding of the true meaning of an author's statements), but doesn't allow us to apply the relationship in the argument.
(C) leaves open the possibility that Smith has insight into that author's circumstances and so doesn't apply to the argument.
(D) switches the term for which the rule (related terms in the argument) can be applied. The answer choice is about Smith's insight into the relation between the terms, not about the author's circumstances.
(E) brings in a wholly irrelevant (but probably true) issue about the difference between the intended and actual meaning of a work.

[HGranger]

I feel a little silly, since there are so few posts on this question so it seems like it should be relatively straight forward, but I just don't understand this question or the answer.

The conclusion is that Smith is not aware of the true meaning of her own words. The reasoning provided is that, by Smith's own logic, we should be able to discern the true meaning of Smith's words based on her social circumstances.

1. The way the premise is framed, I don't see what information is presented that should make me think that it matters whether the author of the statements should be aware of their own social circumstances. Why should it matter if Smith lacks or doesn't lack insight into her own social circumstances? Isn't the point that social circumstances manifest themselves in the authors' statements intrinsically? Maybe I'm reading/understanding this wrong?

2. I'm not understanding what, exactly, suggests that Smith is not aware of the true meaning of her words. Is it that we are not able to discern the true meaning of her statements? Or is it just that, because we should be able to discern the true meaning of her words, Smith is not aware of the true meaning of her words?

I don't know, I'm seriously confused by this question. I know I'm missing something and it's driving me nuts. Please help?

[XiaoyanJ307]

Smith :"The true meaning of an author's statement can be understood only through insight into the author's social circumstances."
Understand true meaning of statement ---> Insight into the author's social circumstances

Speaker: "Thus, if she is right, we should be able, at least in part to discern from Smith's social circumstances the 'true meaning' of Smith's statements "
social circumstances---> Discern true meaning

It seems to me that the speaker wrongfully reversed the causation... Am I the only one thinking the way? It really bothers me...

Thanks if someone would help me to understand this question.

[yiiz427]

I think this is one of the few questions that really just focus on the problem solving techniques inside this test rather than logic thinking in general. And I went wrong direction of overthinking under time pressure, while now I realized it’s only about finding the gap.

I hope this is helpful.

I think the most confusing part is the intricate wording in the argument. And it took me a while to figure out.

The really working part in this argument is:

Premise: “the true meaning of an author’s statements can be understood only through the insight into the author’s social circumstances “

Conclusion : “ Smith herself is not aware of the true meaning of her own words”

And the gap is pretty obvious.

The sentences in between are basically the paraphrase of the Premise in an extremely intricate way.