Q20 - Principle: One should criticize

[yahoo]

Can someone please explain why B is incorrect? Thanks

[cyruswhittaker]

Here are my thoughts on this question:

The principle cites that there are two conditions that MUST be met (only if) that justifies one to criticize the works of another person:

1) won't seriously harm the person criticized
2) one does so in the hope/expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself

So, if either of these conditions is not met, then by the contrapositive, the principle asserts that one should not criticize the works/actions of another person.

In the application, the claim is that Jarret should not have critized Osterag's works. However, the premise that it uses sollowing since doesn't by itself justify this claim using the principle. In the application, all we know is that the defects benefited noone. In the principle, for condition 2 to hold, it's based on the "hope/expectation."

So it would be possible, for example, that Jarrett hoped the defects would benefit someone else, even though they were actually so obvious that noone ended up benefitied.

A is correct because it shows that condition 2 of the principle (a necessary condition) is not met because he knew they would not benefit anyone (so obviously it wasn't possible that he hoped/expected the criticism to benefit someone). Hence by the contrapositive the application's claim can be made.

Answer choice B is incorrect because it does not touch on either of the necessary conditions that are asserted by the principle.

I'm thinking maybe you thought that by the contrapositive of B, we can show that the criticism did not benefit Osterag. If this is the case, then it still doesn't justify the principle, for the following two reasons: 1) the first necessary condition requires that it seriously harms the person, which is different from not being to someon's benefit 2) we can't deduce from the info following "since" in the application that Osterag was unaware of the defects.

[pinkdatura]

could anyone explain to me why E is wrong?
Here's my thoughts about the question
P: criticize-->not harm + do so in hope of benefiting someone other than oneself
I am wondering this oneself refers to? the guy initiate criticism or the guy is criticized?
App: J: ~criticize, so we need to either "harm" or "do so not in hope of benefiting someone other than oneself

I have a hard choice between A and E
A J know the criticism isn't benefiting anyone=not in hope of benefiting anyone
E J didn't expect the criticism to benefit O or if it leaves gap that J do so expecting to benefit someone other than O?

Other choice:
C antagonize O not equal to harm O
B benefit O--> O aware, since there's no mention of O be aware of not
D benefit J (so I guess the "oneself" above refers to J rather than O)?

[cyruswhittaker]

The principle states that there are two necessary conditions to be met if one should criticize the works/actions of another person:

1) will not seriously harm the person criticized
AND
2) does so (criticizes) in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself

So, if either of these conditions is NOT met, then the sufficient condition (should criticize) will not be possible (should not criticize, the negated form).

Notice that the application as it is stated doesn't directly tie into the principle's necessary conditions because the principle specifically states "hope or expectation."

A is correct because it does not allow the second necessary condition to hold. If they were so obvious that Jarrett knew that noone would benefit, then it wouldn't be possible for him to criticize "in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than himself."

And if we show that just one of the necessary conditions doesn't hold in a conditional relationship, then by the contrapositive the sufficient condition is not possible (even if the other necessary condition is met).

E is not correct because it could be true, but it doesn't relate directly to the second necessary condition. Maybe Jarrett didn't expect the criticism to be fore Ostertag's benefit, but he thought that it would be to someone's benefit.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

That's a fantastic explanation! I don't think I need to add a thing, but please do let us know if you need any further clarification on anything.

[haeaznboiyoung]

Why doesn't D work? Doesn't it play on the 2nd condition, "hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself?"

Is it because Jarret may have hoped for himself to gain prestige but may have also hoped for someone else to benefit?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

That's exactly right -- hoping for prestige for oneself does not exclude him from benefitting others.

[qtcherrysyrup]

Can someone please explain each answer choice?
I thought about the contrapositive, so I chose E but obviously it was a wrong answer.

Thank you!

[porsupuesto3798]

First, let's look at the argument.

Principle:
criticize works or actions --> criticism won't seriously harm and there is an expectation of benefiting someone other than self

application:
Jarrett should NOT have criticized because it benefited no one.

Before going to the choices, take a second to analyze. The application concludes "not criticize" while the original begins with "criticize," so as you mentioned, let's contrapose it.

seriously harm OR no expectation of benefiting anyone other than self --> no criticize.

Clearly, the application is trying to take advantage of the "benefit" part of the statement. However, there is a key difference. While the principle utilizes the "expectation or hope" of benefitting, the application says merely "benefit."

The answer will likely help bridge this gap.

(A) Correct. This is just what we need to match the contrapositive.

(B) Ostertag's awareness of the defects is out of scope.

(C) Close, but "might antagonize" ≠ "seriously harm"

(D) Out of scope

(E) Close! But this is not a match for the contrapositive. It only rules out Ostertag from benefitting from the criticism. This is close, but not enough. The principle merely says "someone other than self." This choice rules out Ostertag. The criticism could still have benefitted other members of the class, for example. Notice the key difference between the phrasing of this choice and (A).

I don't think (D) is out of scope. Instead, it is not suffcieint enough to violate the second condition. It mentions benefit oneself but does not exclude the possibility of benefit others.

[shirando21]

First, let's look at the argument.

Principle:
criticize works or actions --> criticism won't seriously harm and there is an expectation of benefiting someone other than self

application:
Jarrett should NOT have criticized because it benefited no one.

Before going to the choices, take a second to analyze. The application concludes "not criticize" while the original begins with "criticize," so as you mentioned, let's contrapose it.

seriously harm OR no expectation of benefiting anyone other than self --> no criticize.

Clearly, the application is trying to take advantage of the "benefit" part of the statement. However, there is a key difference. While the principle utilizes the "expectation or hope" of benefitting, the application says merely "benefit."

The answer will likely help bridge this gap.

(A) Correct. This is just what we need to match the contrapositive.

(B) Ostertag's awareness of the defects is out of scope.

(C) Close, but "might antagonize" ≠ "seriously harm"

(D) Out of scope

(E) Close! But this is not a match for the contrapositive. It only rules out Ostertag from benefitting from the criticism. This is close, but not enough. The principle merely says "someone other than self." This choice rules out Ostertag. The criticism could still have benefitted other members of the class, for example. Notice the key difference between the phrasing of this choice and (A).

E can also trigger the contrapositive, but the question is justify, so A is better.

[timmydoeslsat]

E does not trigger the contrapositive by itself. We would have to know whether Jarrett hoped or expected the criticism to benefit someone other than Ostertag.

[shirando21]

E does not trigger the contrapositive by itself. We would have to know whether Jarrett hoped or expected the criticism to benefit someone other than Ostertag.

I think "oneself" in the principle refers to the criticizer not the person being criticized.

I think E does not show if Jarrett expected the criticism to the benefit of Jarrett or not, which does not satisfy the negation of "one does so in the hope of expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself", that's why it does not trigger the contrapositive.

do you agree?

[rachel.miklaszewski]

what kind of question is this?

[ldfdsa]

Still not sure why D is not the right answer.

Do is something benefits A other than B means that thing does not benefit B?

If yes, then, (D) is right. Because J obviously benefits from gaining prestige, a benefit.