#21 - Literary critic: There is little social significance

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Jennie,

Let's diagram what's important in this question so that we can track the logic more clearly.

1. Conclusion: There is little of social significance in contemporary novels.
2. Premise: Readers enter internal world of novelist Experience world from moral perspective of characters.

Everything after these initial statements is immaterial/irrelevant to the conclusion because the primary and fundamental gap in the reasoning is between statements (1) and (2) above.

We need to establish how the rest of the stimulus connects to the conclusion (1) above. At present there is no connection.

Let's see what answer choices (C) and (E) do for us.

• Answer choice (C): Art (novels included) socially important (socially significant) engages the moral sensibilities of its audience.

With answer choice (C) we have a connection with the concept in the conclusion, the idea of what is necessary for a novel to be socially significant. However, (C) breaks down with the necessary part of the conditional statement. We have no clear connection in the stimulus with whether or not these novels "engage the moral sensibilities of their audiences." We could argue that if these novels are only sensationalistic spectacles then they do not engage their audiences' moral sensibilities, but there is no evidence in the stimulus to support this assumption. We would be creating a conceptual bridge that does not exist in the premises.

• Answer choice (E): Novels' social significance Readers enter internal world of novelist

Answer choice (E) makes a direct conditional link between novels' social significance and the necessary condition that such novels allow the readers to enter the internal world of the novelist.

This answer (E) makes a direct connection and bridges the gap between the conclusion (1, above) and the premise most proximate to it (2). This is why (E) is the credited response.

I hope this helps!

[flowskiferda]

I got this question right because all of the other answer choices sucked even more, but I'm having serious trouble seeing how this isn't just a strengthen question. Even if we assume E, the argument completely fails to establish how contemporary novels don't allow readers to experience the world from the moral perspective of the characters. The best support given for it is the stuff that comes in the second sentence about how the transgressions only serve the purpose of making readers wonder what will come next rather than having them recognize the transgression as injustices, but this is far from strong proof. The assumption that ("transgressions..rather than events whose purpose is to be seen as the injustices they are" → doesn't allow readers to experience the world from characters' moral perspectives) remains completely unjustified. Perhaps these transgressions fail to meet their purpose and are seen as the injustices they are. And even if they do meet their purpose, it's quite a leap to conclude that readers can't fail to see injustices for what they are while simultaneously experiencing the novel's world from the moral perspectives of the characters.

I guess the lesson from this question is to treat sufficient assumption questions as strengthen questions when no answer choice completely justifies the argument?

Thanks in advance for any help!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi flowskiferda,

Good news! This is a strengthen question. A justify question will either justify the conclusion or it won't. In this case, the question asks us which most helps to justify, which is a strengthen question.

Good instincts on this one!

[Henry Z]

Let's diagram what's important in this question so that we can track the logic more clearly.
Conclusion: There is little of social significance in contemporary novels.
Premise: Readers enter internal world of novelist Experience world from moral perspective of characters.
Everything after these initial statements is immaterial/irrelevant to the conclusion because the primary and fundamental gap in the reasoning is between statements (1) and (2) above.

I doubt everything after "BUT" in the stimulus is immaterial/irrelevant; after all, that's half of the stimulus.

I didn't choose E because I think it's simply repeating the conclusion without triggering the conditional, thus doesn't have any impact on the conclusion. I see everything before "BUT" as conclusion and after "BUT" as premise, so in my diagram,
the conclusion is a chain of conditionals: social significance —>novelist’s mind —>character’s moral perspective.

My original anticipation was that, to show there's no social significance, we must show the necessary assumptions are not met. But how do we know we can't experience the character’s moral perspective? If we can, how does E strengthen the argument?

[Adam Tyson]

I doubt everything after "BUT" in the stimulus is immaterial/irrelevant; after all, that's half of the stimulus.

This is actually quite common, Henry! The authors of these arguments LOVE to bury us with stuff that doesn't ultimately matter, and it's our job to see past all that noise and just find the things that matter, which are the premises and the conclusions.

In this case, the first phrase is the conclusion: "There is little of social significance in contemporary novels." The word "for" just after the comma there is a premise indicator; it means "for the reason that," or "here's why that conclusion is true." Thus, the premise offered in support of that conclusion is "readers cannot enter the internal world of the novelist’s mind unless they experience that world from the moral perspective of the novel’s characters." If you focus on just that one sentence, you can see the gap in the argument. What connection is there between entering the internal world and being of social significance? There is none! To strengthen that argument, then, we need to connect those two ideas.

Beware of the use of indicators like "for" and "since" and "because." Those tell you clearly that you are looking at evidence, aka premises, rather than conclusions.

[Henry Z]

Thanks for your reply, Adam. But I still don't see how (E) justifies the conclusion. I feel it's more like a necessary assumption. How do we know we can't experience the character’s moral perspective? If we can, how does E justify the argument?

[Robert Carroll]

Henry Z,

This is not a Justify question, it's a Strengthen question. Here is a relevant post: viewtopic.php?p=9480#p9480

Robert Carroll

[lsatstudent99966]

I chose (C) because I thought the idea of "engaging with the readers' moral sensibilities" is related to the idea of "allowing the readers to experience the world from the moral perspective of the novel's character" and "let the reader see the injustice of the transgression".

Can someone please explain this? Thanks in advance!