#14 - Some theorists argue that literary critics should

[James Finch]

Glad to be of help!

[iannnn555]

I know that some might have already considered this view point already but if I am a bit slow to it, pardon me.

I don't have a better choice than B but I ruled out B because when I read that statement, it just looks as though it is patently wrong on plain sight:

e.g. Some coaches argue that the defense in a basketball game should strive to no concede buckets. They argue that by not conceding buckets, it will allow our offense to outscore the opponent.

The answer B follows: Since it is impossible to concede 0 points in any game (cannot be completely value-neutral), you should not even be bothered with try to trying to defend/stop the other team from scoring.

Or alternatively, some humanitarians argue that one should always strive for peace, but since complete and total peace is impossible, one shouldn't even try to promote peace altogether

Without trying to sound like I'm nitpicking counter examples that y'all might find appropriate/inappropriate, what I'm trying to say is that, most goals in most activities are impossible to achieve in absolution, saying that it is thus a principle to abstain from doing things that can't be completely done seems to immediately appear to be wrong to me.

Especially consider that: if I were to be a critic on literature, while it would be impossible to not impart my world view and the context based on my personal experience and project it upon someone else's art, it would definitely be a professional standard or at least professional etiquette to be as transparent about objective literature merit itself as possible (e.g. things like the cadence and development of stories, use of appropriate languages in said books, period correct circumstances or deliberately incorrectness of such circumstances if it purveys some message or evoke some emotions, etc.)

As such it made me believe that while I can't really justify any other answers were more correct, answer B definitely jumped out to me as the most wrong answer.

Or rather, maybe there are just instances where anyone of use will inevitably disagree with the author no matter what?

[atierney]

Hi Ian,

Yes, I'm actually a big basketball so I definitely understand where you're coming from with your examples, and I actually agree overall with your logic! But remember, by saying all of this, you are essentially evaluating the argument in this question! It's always important to remember the "call to action" of each question you face on the LSAT. Here, we're not asked to "evaluate the argument," or even evaluate the "logic" of the answer choices (in so far as doing so distracts from the aforementioned "call to action").

What we are asked to do here, is to prove the answer choice correct, i.e. find a statement that "fills the gap" in the argument between the conclusion and premises. Here, that gap is filled by noting that if something can't be done, then we shouldn't try to do it, as answer choice B alludes to. Now, whether you agree with that or not, hopefully you can see how it provides support for the argument, by logically proving the correctness of its conclusion. The penultimate sentence says, "literary criticism can't be value neutral," and the conclusion ends with, we shouldn't use "being value neutral" as a goal of literary criticism. Now, why? What is the missing premise that provides logical support for this assertion? Well, it's exactly what B says! Impossibility means don't do it!

However, I should add, scoring well (170s) on the LSAT is NOT impossible!

Let me know if you have any questions on this.