- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:55 pm
#26205
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (E)
The literary critic begins the stimulus with the argument’s conclusion, that “there is little of social
significance in contemporary novels.” In support of this conclusion, the critic points out that if
readers are to enter the internal world of the novelist’s mind, they have to experience that internal
world from the moral perspective of the novel’s characters. The problem with contemporary novels,
the critic says, is that in those novels the transgressive acts committed by some characters against
other characters are not included to be seen as injustices, but rather as sensationalistic spectacles
designed to keep the reader’s attention. For these reasons, the critic concludes that contemporary
novels have little social significance.
The critic’s argument is very weak, because nothing in the premises connects directly to the idea
of social significance introduced in the conclusion. We can infer that the author is telling us that
because the transgressive acts of the novels’ characters are not included to be seen as injustices, then
the reader is not able to enter the internal world of the novelist’s mind. However, that is as far as we
can go. We cannot make the further connection between being unable to enter the internal world of
the novelist’s mind and having social significance.
This is a Strengthen—Principle question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will tell us
that a novel’s social significance is connected to the ability of the reader to enter the internal world of
the novelist’s mind. Do not worry about predicting the precise language that the answer choice will
use. Simply look for that connection and ensure from the entire context of the answer choice that it
in fact supports the conclusion.
Answer choice (A): Although the critic is talking about “contemporary” novels, this answer choice
has an emphasis on past novels versus contemporary novels that was not present in the stimulus and
does not support the conclusion.
Answer choice (B): Even assuming that empathizing with a victim of injustice is meant to be
logically the same as the concept in the stimulus of experiencing the inner world of the novelist from
the moral perspective of the novel’s characters, this answer choice is incorrect because the critic only
referenced the lack of scenes whose purpose is to show injustice. There is no indication that the critic
would say that sensationalistic scenes are a problem if the novel also contained other scenes that
showed the injustice of the characters’ transgressive acts.
Answer choice (C): Here, knowing that a socially important work must engage the moral
sensibilities of the audience does not strengthen the conclusion that contemporary novels have little
social significance. Remember that we want to strengthen the connection between readers entering
the internal world of the novelist’s mind and the social significance of the novel. The inability of
the reader to enter that world is what prompts the critic to reach the conclusion, while the failure
to engage the moral sensibilities of the audience is just one reason why the reader cannot enter that
inner world.
Answer choice (D): Again, this answer choice has the wrong focus. We are looking to strengthen the
connection between entering the inner world of the author’s mind and social significance. That is
the relationship apparently relied on by the critic, and that is where the connection should occur to
strengthen the conclusion.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice, because it provides a rule telling us that
if a novel is to have social significance, then it must allow readers to enter the internal world of the
author’s mind. This is the connection we need to establish for the conclusion to be valid.
Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (E)
The literary critic begins the stimulus with the argument’s conclusion, that “there is little of social
significance in contemporary novels.” In support of this conclusion, the critic points out that if
readers are to enter the internal world of the novelist’s mind, they have to experience that internal
world from the moral perspective of the novel’s characters. The problem with contemporary novels,
the critic says, is that in those novels the transgressive acts committed by some characters against
other characters are not included to be seen as injustices, but rather as sensationalistic spectacles
designed to keep the reader’s attention. For these reasons, the critic concludes that contemporary
novels have little social significance.
The critic’s argument is very weak, because nothing in the premises connects directly to the idea
of social significance introduced in the conclusion. We can infer that the author is telling us that
because the transgressive acts of the novels’ characters are not included to be seen as injustices, then
the reader is not able to enter the internal world of the novelist’s mind. However, that is as far as we
can go. We cannot make the further connection between being unable to enter the internal world of
the novelist’s mind and having social significance.
This is a Strengthen—Principle question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will tell us
that a novel’s social significance is connected to the ability of the reader to enter the internal world of
the novelist’s mind. Do not worry about predicting the precise language that the answer choice will
use. Simply look for that connection and ensure from the entire context of the answer choice that it
in fact supports the conclusion.
Answer choice (A): Although the critic is talking about “contemporary” novels, this answer choice
has an emphasis on past novels versus contemporary novels that was not present in the stimulus and
does not support the conclusion.
Answer choice (B): Even assuming that empathizing with a victim of injustice is meant to be
logically the same as the concept in the stimulus of experiencing the inner world of the novelist from
the moral perspective of the novel’s characters, this answer choice is incorrect because the critic only
referenced the lack of scenes whose purpose is to show injustice. There is no indication that the critic
would say that sensationalistic scenes are a problem if the novel also contained other scenes that
showed the injustice of the characters’ transgressive acts.
Answer choice (C): Here, knowing that a socially important work must engage the moral
sensibilities of the audience does not strengthen the conclusion that contemporary novels have little
social significance. Remember that we want to strengthen the connection between readers entering
the internal world of the novelist’s mind and the social significance of the novel. The inability of
the reader to enter that world is what prompts the critic to reach the conclusion, while the failure
to engage the moral sensibilities of the audience is just one reason why the reader cannot enter that
inner world.
Answer choice (D): Again, this answer choice has the wrong focus. We are looking to strengthen the
connection between entering the inner world of the author’s mind and social significance. That is
the relationship apparently relied on by the critic, and that is where the connection should occur to
strengthen the conclusion.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice, because it provides a rule telling us that
if a novel is to have social significance, then it must allow readers to enter the internal world of the
author’s mind. This is the connection we need to establish for the conclusion to be valid.
