#3 - Finnish author Jaakko Mikkeli was accused by Norwegian

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (C)

In this stimulus, the discussion is centered around Halden’s allegation of plagiarism, and Mikkeli’s defense, which is based on two premises:

• Premise 1: Mikkeli does not understand Norwegian, the language of Halden’s book.
  
  Premise 2: No reviews of the work in question have been published.

Based on these two premises, Mikkeli concludes that he did not have access to Halden’s story. The implicit presumption of this defense is that there were no other ways to access Halden’s story.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Answer choice (C) provides an accurate defender assumption upon which Mikkeli’s argument is based. If we are to conclude that Mikkeli did not have access to Halden’s story, as discussed above, then we must assume that no one told Mikkeli about the story.

To check our work, we can apply the Assumption Negation technique:

Answer choice (C) (negated): Someone told Halden’s plot to Mikkeli. Since this negated version of the answer choice clearly defeats Mikkeli’s defense, this is indeed an assumption on which Mikkeli’s defense relies.

Answer choice (A) is certainly not required by the argument. The negated version, “Mikkeli has met Holden,” has no effect whatsoever on Mikelli’s defense, so this cannot be an assumption on which it relies. Answer choice (B) is also irrelevant to the inquiry—the popularity of a book amongst the Norwegian people would not have a clear effect on the likelihood that Mikkeli has encountered the plot, since Mikkeli does not understand Norwegian. Since answer choice (D) might actually work against Mikkeli’s defense (making it more likely that there was similarity), it cannot be an assumption on which the defense relies. Finally, answer choice (E) is completely irrelevant, since Old Icelandic is not even referenced in the stimulus.

[H0WZA24]

Hello Powerscore,

I understand why answer choice C is correct, but in the explanations of the incorrect answer choices it says that A when negated has no effect on the argument. If Mikkeli has indeed met Halden then wouldn't that sort of attack the argument? Like if he has met Halden than it is much more likely that he would have heard the plot of the book?

Thanks,

Luke

[Alex Bodaken]

HOWZA24,

Thanks for the question. It is possible that you could consider the negated version of (A) (Mikkeli has met Halden) as a weaken answer, but it is really quite a loose connection. The crux of the Mikkeli's argument is that he does not understand Halden's story; simply meeting Halden does not provide us with any real evidence that he would suddenly understand the story (we would need to know that Halden had somehow communicated the story, which we do not). By contrast, the negation of answer choice (C) (Someone told Halden’s plot to Mikkeli) would clearly weaken Mikkeli's argument - were this to be true, it would crucially weaken Mikkeli's argument of not knowing/understanding Halden's plot. That is why (C) ends up being a better choice than (A).

Hope that helps!
Alex

[siamnet]

I guess I had a hard time understanding the answer C. I interpreted C ("nobody related the plot...") as "someone in the plot of the novel of Halden.." And I stopped reading the rest since I was thinking to myself, "What does the character ("someone in the plot" ) from the book have anything to do with this?" Therefore, I dismissed C as a viable choice.
I didn't realize the verb, "relate", had another meaning besides "to sympathize, identify..". Instead the other meaning which I'm not all familiar with is "to show a connection." If I had known that other definition for "relate" then C would make sense and would be the logical answer.

I guess my engineering background doesn't lend itself to understanding other usage/meaning for verbs. I use the verb, "relate", in the only definition that I know/familiar, "to sympathize". What can I do generally to make sure that I can understand some of these nuances with everyday or common verbs?(English is my second language).

[Dave Killoran]

I guess I had a hard time understanding the answer C. I interpreted C ("nobody related the plot...") as "someone in the plot of the novel of Halden.." And I stopped reading the rest since I was thinking to myself, "What does the character ("someone in the plot" ) from the book have anything to do with this?" Therefore, I dismissed C as a viable choice.
I didn't realize the verb, "relate", had another meaning besides "to sympathize, identify..". Instead the other meaning which I'm not all familiar with is "to show a connection." If I had known that other definition for "relate" then C would make sense and would be the logical answer.

I guess my engineering background doesn't lend itself to understanding other usage/meaning for verbs. I use the verb, "relate", in the only definition that I know/familiar, "to sympathize". What can I do generally to make sure that I can understand some of these nuances with everyday or common verbs?(English is my second language).

Hi Siam,

Hmm, this is a tough one, in large part because the English language is so sprawling that it's easy to miss certain words or meanings when you are an ESL speaker. It's also tough to know what you do and don't know, and so the best thing I can think of is to make sure you go through as many LSAT questions as possible. That will best familiarize you with their usages and presentations. It may not prepare you for everything, but they do re-use phrases quite a bit. this one, for example, when it comes up again won't be as unknown to you.

It's interesting in this case, because the "sympathize" usage you refer to is more casual, as in "I can relate," which translates to "I understand." If the usage had been about "someone" as you thought, then it would have been phrased as "nobody related to the plot..." But that's the exact kind of nuance that is easy to miss as an ESL speaker.

Keep working on questions and do as many as possible. It will help!

[nzLSAT]

Hello,

I was between B and C. I chose B because I thought about it as if his book didn't become popular in Norway, there is no way for Mikkeli to have known about it ("and because no reviews of Halden's book have ever been published,"). Can someone please explain how I could have instantly looked at B and thought it was wrong rather than have made this incorrect assumption? Thanks!

[Bob O'Halloran]

Hi NZ,
Thank you for the question.
Answer choice (B) is incorrect because the books popularity in Norway doesn't really matter since Mikkeli doesn't understand Norwegian.

The Assumption Negation Technique really helps when deciding between 2 answers to a assumption question.

The Assumption Negation Technique basically tells us that if an answer choice is truly necessary to an argument, then if you negate (or take the opposite of) that answer choice, it should attack the argument.

If the book is popular in Norway, it really doesn't hurt Mikkeli defense.

However, if someone related the plot before he wrote his book, then his defense totally falls apart.

Please let us know if you have additional questions.
Bob