#15 - Many scholars claim that Shakespeare’s portrayal of

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[15veries]

I was not sure between A and E...
Why is A not E?

So the assumption I thought would be something like "If the character is described as fascinating and illuminating both aesthetically and morally, the accuracy is not relevant for appreciate S's work" so the last sentence is the premise and the middle is conclusion right?

I don't really know where "undemine" come from and what makes E wrong...I thought if that's the "only" case, that means in other cases inaccuracies should not be corrected and thus not a big deal.
I thought A is wrong because it only talks about aesthetical merits but in the argument it also talks about moral merits...right? Usually I thought justify question goes broader.

[Adam Tyson]

Let's start by analyzing the question type here, 15v. The stem asks us which answer choice "most helps" to justify the conclusion. That's neither an assumption question nor a justify question - it's a strengthen. Anything that reduces the amount of justification to something less than 100% ("most helps", "tends to help", etc.) takes it out of the realm of justification and into merely strengthen. Also, you talked a bit about the assumptions inherent in this argument, and that's okay so long as you don't then start treating the question as if it is asking for an assumption. This stem includes the phrase "if valid", and assumption question never use that language.

So, all we need to do here is help, even a little bit, the conclusion that scholars' claims about inaccuracy are irrelevant for appreciating the work.

Answer E is completely off base and has nothing to do with relevance to appreciating the work. It's about when you should correct those inaccuracies, which has nothing to do with whether we can still appreciate Shakespeare's plays. If anything, answer E might strengthen the claim of the scholars, since they are apparently complaining about a falsely negative impression of who Richard III really was, one that could be said to harm his reputation if it were to be believed.

Answer A, however, goes right to the point, and does a lot to help. If it's true that the aesthetic value is not necessarily undermined (weakened, lessened, etc.) by inaccuracies, that would support the claim that inaccuracies are not relevant for appreciating those qualities. It doesn't matter a bit that morals aren't mentioned in the answer, because we don't need to strengthen every aspect of the conclusion, we only need to strengthen it overall. Every little bit helps!

Be sure to check the language of the stem carefully so you know what question type you are dealing with, and then apply the appropriate strategies to those questions.

Keep up the hard work, and it will pay off for you!

[taylorharris24]

Why is C wrong? I understand the wording is not as relevant as A, but the mere fact is states that hes beyond the scope of all literary criticism seems to justify the authors reasoning 100%. Plus, A says "not necessarily" which I feel we can't count on justifying 100% of the time.

My thought process with C is, even if the principle it is drawing is derived from the wrong reasons, the conclusion it states, that he is above all criticism, is just too strong.

[James Finch]

Hi Taylor,

The "beyond all criticism" would be relevant, except that the sentences effectively reverses what the argument in the stimulus is making: "Shakespeare's historical importance," rather than his aesthetic importance, renders him invulnerable to literary criticism. The argument made in the stimulus is that his aesthetic importance renders him invulnerable to historical criticism, and this is the argument we need to strengthen. So (C) contains the right terms but put together in the wrong ways, a common LSAT trap.

Hope this clears things up!