Q3

[cyruswhittaker]

Can you please explain the reasoning why E is correct for this question vs. choice B?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I think you are correct, in a general sense, in terms of what side of the argument the author falls on.

However, (B) is incorrect because the specific terms used in (B) don't match the exact role well.

By it's nature, something that has subtext cannot be one-sided.

Furthermore, "no voice" is too extreme.

What the author is saying is that critics are subtly negative even when they are positive -- making digs in the way they give praise --

(Consider the difference between the phrases "You look great!" and "You look better than you normally do!" The second would be an example of a comment that is subtly negative while being positive.)

(B) doesn't represent this idea well, but (E) does.

[zainrizvi]

What about (D)? I'm confused as to why it's wrong.

Is it because there really isn't any specific textual support for the requirements being "ill-conceived"? Sure if (D) were true, the critics underlying subtext would be negative, but this isn't supported by the passage. Furthermore, the fact that the requirements would have little bearing on what great literature truly is, shifts the focus from what the authors real subtext is (book isn't that great) to more of a focus on the requirements. The subtext isn't saying anything about the requirements, but the passage itself.

(E) is more supported by the use of "sole" in the passage.

[schmid215]

I should have chosen (E), but they really should have cleaned it up a bit more. As it stands, it basically says that the author is claiming that: "the requirements mentioned by the critic are not the sole requirements, therefore the critic implies mphalale's work is not great lit". That does not make any sense, and "according to the critic" (or perhaps "...not viewed as the sole requirements by the critic") is clearly needed before the comma, because the author: 1. is not arguing that on the basis of his views that the critic implies something, he's arguing on the basis of the critic's views that the critic's works imply something and 2. we have zero evidence the author affirms what the critic does anyway. Would it really have been that hard for them to clean up this choice?

[shirando21]

I don't understand the logic in E, "thus" does not make sense to me.

Can anyone help to explain?

Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

Since there is general dislike/confusion for how (E) is stated, let me try to defend it.

This question stem is saying that the author uses a phrase to do what?

This is akin to questions worded
"the author mentions ____ in order to"
"the author's reference to ____ serves to"

These questions ask about the Purpose of an example or phrase, and they almost always reinforce the broader claim the author made right before the example/phrase in question.

This question stem actually makes it clear that we're to comment on how the critic's comment relates to "negative subtext".

Say we were talking about whether "Avatar" should win Best Picture, and some critic said ...

Critic: "If all the Academy looked for in a Best Picture was special effects, then 'Avatar' would win the award."

Do you interpret that critic to mean that 'Avatar' should or shouldn't win Best Picture?

Most of us would hear that quote as a negative in disguise. The implied feel is that 'Avatar' shouldn't win the award, because the criteria for Best Picture are about more than just special effects.

However, it is possible to interpret the critic's comment neutrally. We could think, "he's just saying that 'Avatar' has the best special effects of any movie."

If you only accept the positive, explicit idea the author said, then the critic is just saying that 'Avatar' has the best special effects.

If, instead, you hear the comment as being sarcastic or tinged with negativity, then what you're 'hearing' is " of course the Best Picture award is about more than just special effects, so 'Avatar' is undeserving of it."

That's precisely what's going on with the wording of (E). It's basically spelling out the sarcastic/negative interpretation of what the critic said.

While the author of this passage did not explicitly make any comment on what he/she believes are the actual requirements for great literature, the fact that the author interprets the critic's comment as negative sarcasm tells us that the author believes that there are other requirements for great literature and that the critic was implying that Mphahlele is undeserving of that label.

Hope this helps.

[ganbayou]

Hi,

So for sarcastic interpretation, it is OK to interpret like: A=>B, but in fact-A=>-B?
At first sight it seems like it negates conditional statement illegally...but it is OK since it is not actual conditional statement?
I'm still not sure how E is the answer...
And just grammatically, if the sentence wants to say -A=>-B, wouldn't it be "if anger, firsthand experiences, compassion, and topicality had been the sole requirements for great literature, the novel might have well been one of the masterpieces" ?

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I certainly shudder to approve of your idea to put this in conditional format, but that IS the intended meaning of that sarcastic structure.

If all we cared about was special FX, Avatar would be best picture.
(implied meaning: special FX is NOT all we care about, thus Avatar was NOT best picture)

Grammatically, we wouldn't use past perfect because the criteria for great literature isn't something that already happened. It is presumably timeless. We can decide, today, whether a novel written 100 years ago (and never seen/published) IS or ISN'T great literature. We aren't limited by deciding whether it WAS or WASN'T great literature.

In terms of still not being sure how (E) is the answer, it's for the reason I mentioned and you codified:
The sarcasm of "If ____ was all that mattered, then X would be true" has the intended effect of "_____ is NOT all that matters, so X is not true".

Put another way, you know that the example in 20-25 has to be a positive review with negative context (otherwise it wouldn't be an example of line 18-19).

So what IS the negative context of line 20-25? It's answer choice (E).

[deedubbew]

Is the only reason not to choose B, because of the word, "unfairly"?

[ohthatpatrick]

If we removed "unfairly" from (B), would the rest of the answer be supportable in any way? I don't understand what it has to do with lines 18-25. "Perspective M might embrace"?

All that's happening at this point in the passage is the author, who has a positive view of M, is complaining that some critics are too uptight about defining genres and therefore are troubled by M's genre-defying style. Our author says, "even supposedly positive reviews seem to have some negative swipe at M."

Our author doesn't think that critics are trying to mute perspectives that M might embrace.

Our author thinks that critics are uncomfortable with M's writing style, because it blurs the line between autobiography and fiction.

let's put up reasons to eliminate the other four answers
==========================

If you have an ear for strong language, RC elimination can get quicker/easier:

(A) "little interest"
(B) "gives NO voice"
(C) "direct contradiction"
(D) "ill conceived" / "little bearing"

By contrast, (E) is saying "NOT the sole requirements", "NOT great literature"

Those are weaker ideas. Saying something IS the sole requirement is extreme. Saying it's not is weak. Saying something IS great literature is strong. Saying it's not is weak.

In more conversational terms, the author is merely saying that the critic's comment has negative subtext, and the negative subtext is that great lit would need to go beyond anger / compassion / topicality / etc.

(A) M interest in establishing guidelines distinguishing fact from fiction?

(B) unfairly one-sided? leaves out M's perspectives?

(C) and (D) ... the author never gets into defining requirements for great literature (our author seems to NOT have any rigid sense of what must be).