#24 - For a work to be rightly thought of as world

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[LSAT99.9]

Hello,

I would like to clarify my reasoning for why E is correct. My diagram is as follows:

World literature - > (received and interpreted within) national tradition AND external national tradition

Therefore, even if the world literature affects national development, since it affects ONLY national and not external national, it is not world literature? I got this right, but this seems a bit confusing because the stimulus does not mention anything about external national traditions. So couldn't a work of literature be received and interpreted by an external national tradition (and not affect the development)? In this case even if the work affects the development of only one national tradition it can still be world literature ? I'm sorry if this sounds all rambl-y! Any help would be appreciated ! The LSAT is in a few days EEP! so excited !

Thank you!

[Claire Horan]

World literature (received and interpreted within) writer's national tradition AND external national tradition

interpreted within a national tradition used as a positive model for the development of their own tradition, OR as a negative case of a decadent tendency that must be consciously avoided, OR as an image of radical otherness that prompts refinement of the home tradition.

So to be world literature, one of the three ways of being interpreted within a national tradition must be the case for both the writer's national tradition and an external national tradition. If it only fulfills a condition for the writer's own national tradition, it has not been received and interpreted within an external national tradition. Therefore, it is not world literature.

*Note: I have edited this post after a later post persuaded me of a better interpretation.*

[NeverMissing]

Answer choice E claims that a work isn't world literature if it "effects the development" of only one national tradition. Does the test want us to see "development" and "received and interpreted" to be synonymous terms? Because I definitely did not read these two terms as synonymous, but it looks like the only way to make answer choice E correct is if we assume that they are synonymous terms.

This is one of those questions that I feel plays way to loose and fast with language, using terms that are nowhere near perfect synonyms. I see that one of the ways that interpreting within a national tradition could happen is through the "positive model for the development" of their own tradition, but the other two options don't seem to touch on the development of a national tradition (unless we assume that any act of receiving and interpretation is development). If something is a negative example to be avoided, how can this help develop anything? Doesn't it provide nothing to develop off of due to its very nature as a negative example?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, NeverMissing,

Thanks for the good question and your analysis. The correct answer for question hinges on a careful analysis of the interplay of the sufficient and necessary conditions and then an appreciation of the nuances of the question itself. In fact, the choice of language here is both careful and deliberate. Let's break this question down.

1. World Literature Interpreted within Writer's National Tradition & Interpreted within Other National Traditions
2. Used in one of Three Ways Interpreted within a National Tradition

Let's consider answer choice (E). What do we know about a work that affects the development of only one national tradition? Note that all three of the ways that a work could be interpreted within a national tradition involve "development" in some sense, whether literal "development of their own tradition," something to be "avoided" (prima facie a "development"), or as a "refinement" (also a "development"). Thus in any sense in which a work could be considered "interpreted within a national tradition," it has in some sense contributed to "development." Further, we know from the premises that for a work to be part of world literature it is necessary that it be interpreted within multiple national traditions. Thus, we can conclude that given that a work has affected the development of but one national tradition it is also interpreted in only one national tradition. Thus it cannot meet the necessary prerequisite of world literature.

Now, one could argue that the syntax of (2) would not lead to the double arrow above but only to a unidirectional conditional with the three development methods as independent sufficient conditions to guarantee that a work be interpreted within a national tradition. The nuance of the sentence ("counts as [...] if [...] at least one of three ways") led me to use a double arrow here. However, one could argue that there could be some other, fourth, sufficient condition, not stated, that does not involve "development," that would be independently sufficient to guarantee that a work be considered "interpreted" within a national tradition. One could thus argue hypothetically that this stimulus does not rule out such a possibility.

However, at this point we should return to the question task itself, which asks us to find which statement is "most strongly supported" by the information in the stimulus. I hope with the benefit of this further analysis we might agree that there is in fact substantial support for answer choice (E) and certainly more support for (E) than for any of the alternatives. Thus, (E) satisfies this particular question and is the credited response.

I hope this helps!

[nlittle]

Now, one could argue that the syntax of (2) would not lead to the double arrow above but only to a unidirectional conditional with the three development methods as independent sufficient conditions to guarantee that a work be interpreted within a national tradition. The nuance of the sentence ("counts as [...] if [...] at least one of three ways") led me to use a double arrow here. However, one could argue that there could be some other, fourth, sufficient condition, not stated, that does not involve "development," that would be independently sufficient to guarantee that a work be considered "interpreted" within a national tradition. One could thus argue hypothetically that this stimulus does not rule out such a possibility.

However, at this point we should return to the question task itself, which asks us to find which statement is "most strongly supported" by the information in the stimulus. I hope with the benefit of this further analysis we might agree that there is in fact substantial support for answer choice (E) and certainly more support for (E) than for any of the alternatives. Thus, (E) satisfies this particular question and is the credited response.

I hope this helps!

I actually would argue for the unidirectional requirement and potential for additional sufficiency that would satisfy that a writers own NT and external NT without development. I would also say that even if at least one of the three methods were required for NTs, what would preclude one single type of "development" from satisfying the necessary conditions of both a writers own NT and external NT?

Because the author actually affirms that something 100% cannot be the case, I still am reserved against E... given that there is so much room for doubt. I had similar problems with D, which speaks to external influence of the writer, and uses "always", but it still seemed to cast slightly less doubt as E just seemed wide open with logical gaps.

To compare the two, D and E both use statements of certainty regarding terms not required by the fact set, "influence" and "development". If one could argue that something is conditionally required when it isn't, I don't see the writer requiring some bit of influence from other works to write about external national traditions as any more of a stretch of the imagination. Besides, the stimulus does not say only if... it just says if. The fact that E makes a mistaken reversal that they consistently test on and use to justify why answers are incorrect to now justify that an answer is supported just seems inconsistent and comes across as a bright and shining wrong answer.

I know this is a most strongly supported question type, so the correct answer need not be perfect, but does that really mean they can throw flawed logic at us and expect us to read their minds about when that is and isn't okay?

[Claire Horan]

Hi Nlittle,

I also originally interpreted the conditional relationship as unidirectional and have now been convinced that bidirectional is a better interpretation of the sentence. Even if you disagree, though, the other answer choices are worse.

And to show that, let's consider your other contender, answer choice (D): "A work of world literature is always influenced by works outside of the writer’s national tradition."

Nowhere in the stimulus do we see any requirement that in order to be world literature a work must be influenced by any other works. Both conditional relationships given speak to the influence that the work has on traditions. Nothing in the stimulus depends on what influences the work. I would say this answer choice has been planted mainly to trap someone who is reading too fast.

Even if we agree that the LSAT isn't perfect, if someone misses only questionable questions, s/he will end up with a very, very high score! So try not to worry too much.

[ksikanon]

I'm not following the logic on the biconditional arrow for the second premise. Why would the second statement be considered a biconditional arrow?

Is this interpretation of reasoning incorrect?:

For a work to be world literature, it needs two things: received and interpreted in writer's own national tradition, and received and interpreted in at least one other country's national tradition. Therefore, it can't be a work of world literature if it only meets the first condition (interpreted in just one national tradition) and not the second (interpreted in some other national tradition).

I feel like the important thing to notice in the stimulus is that the second premise uses the plural "traditionS". Is that too simple of an interpretation? Am I missing something?

[Adam Tyson]

As to the biconditional, I read the phrase "at least one of three ways" as strongly suggesting that at least one of those is necessary. I think we can probably all agree that if one of those three things happens, then the work has been interpreted within a national tradition. They are clearly sufficient conditions. But, the "at least" language is suggestive of them also being necessary, and might be paraphrased as "interpretation within a national tradition requires at least one of these three things".

There is some room for debate on that point, showing that the test authors are getting better at making our lives difficult, but as Claire pointed out that debate need not be resolved in order to find the best answer here. If a work is not received and interpreted within at least two national traditions - the writer's own and at least one external one - then it is not a work of world literature. Only answer E comes close. We can debate the finer points of the "development" aspect of that answer, but that is the only answer that even stimulate such a debate, while the others are all completely without support, and so it is the best of the bunch.

Btw, I think the key in that second premise is not the plural traditions, because it could be just one external tradition. Rather, the key is "external", meaning other than the writer's.

I hope that helped!

[ashpine17]

I still don't understand what is wrong with D; we know that a work of world literature is received and interpreted within the author's own national tradition and external ones, so does received and interpreted mean something different from "influenced by?" Is E correct because a work of world literature needs to be received and interpreted by at least two traditions? (the author's own and at least one external tradition?) What does received and interpreted mean in this context?