Q19 - Although it has been suggested that Arton's plays have

[jaf51200]

Hello guys,

I'm confused with why question E is incorrect.

My argument core is as follows:

General morale of her national was at an especially low point THEREFORE any apparent patriotism in Arton's work must have been intended ironically.

Gaps:

1) Does the general low moral of the nation mean that Arton has a low moral? The author assumes that Arton has a low moral like the rest of the nation.

2) Even if Arton does have a low moral, does her low moral mean that her patriotism was intended ironically? The author assumes that since Arton has a low moral any apparent patriotism must be ironic.

My first gap is a prephase of choice C, so I understand why thats correct. But I don't understand why choice E is incorrect. My second gap seems to point out E's idea: That the author mismatched "Low moral" with "any apparent patriotism in Arton's work must have been intended ironically."

Thank you!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Interesting question, Alexander93!

First, I'd like to commend you on your excellent distillation of the core of the argument. As with any Flaw question, this is where we've got to begin.

PREMISE
Nation's general morale super low
CONCLUSION
If Arton's work looks patriotic, Arton must have intended it ironically

Identifying the gaps are where you got a bit off track, though, Alexander93. We don't have to assume that Arton herself has low morale in order for the argument to work. In fact, whether Arton has low morale is essentially irrelevant to the question of what she intended in her plays.

We are definitely assuming that something about the generally low morale must necessarily have affected Arton's intentions though. But that does not have to operate through Arton having low morale! All we really need is to say that Arton could not possibly have intended sincere patriotism if the nation's morale was low.

While it's unlikely we'd be able to predict (C) (not uncommon for flaws that are also necessary assumptions), we do need Arton to be aware of the generally low morale! What if she weren't? If she had no idea that morale was low, then how could we make any claims about her intentions?


Not The Problem

(A) Unemployment and crime are simply two items that helped depress the general morale. The author doesn't assume any particular relationship between them.

(B) First, we have no idea whether Arton is a serious writer or not. Second, even if she were, this is entirely too broad. We don't need it to be impossible for Arton to write straightforward patriotism under any circumstances - just when there's low morale.

(D) This doesn't tell us anything about Arton's intentions, either way.

(E) While the argument leaps from the morale decline to a claim about irony, that doesn't mean the author is confusing the two things. "Confusing" is a term generally used when an author seems to mix two ideas up without realizing it, or replaces one term for another without acknowledging the change.

And the conclusion isn't just replacing morale decline with irony in a claim - rather, the morale decline is the evidence for a more complex claim: that if there seems to be patriotism in Arton's works, it must have been intended ironically rather than sincerely.


Does this help clear things up a bit?

[WaltGrace1983]

I thought this was a very interesting question and I was able to see why (C) is right and (E) is wrong. However, I am really fascinated with (E). Could you give an example (even an LSAT one) in which (E) is actually occurring? Is it literally something as simple as an argument like this:

"Arton's plays artistically express a general decline in public morale. Therefore, Arton's plays are ironic"

EDIT: because I feel that this is basically the heart and soul of many LSAT flaws, aka "the author depends on the assumption that some plays that artistically express a general decline in public morale are actually ironic" or maybe "the argument can logically follow if all plays that express a general decline in public morale are ironic" OR even a strengthener such as "there have been some plays that express a general decline in public morale as irony"

Do you see what I mean? It is the apples = oranges conundrum that the LSAT plays with all the time.