#15 - Critic: Works of literature often present protagonists

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (B)

Because the argument is relatively complex, it would be a good idea to concisely identify the critic's premises and conclusion:

• Premise: Protagonists in literature often scorn civic duty.
  
  Premise: Modern literature is often sympathetic towards these protagonists
  
  Premise: Modern literature may cause lack of concern for societal good
  
  Conclusion: Modern literature can damage individuals and society at large

Just because some readers might be unconcerned with contributing to societal good does not necessarily mean that modern literature can damage them or the society at large. What if individual or societal well-being were completely independent of any concern for societal good? You should look for a Supporter Assumption stating they aren't. This, in essence, is answer choice (B).

Answer choice (A): This answer choice is an exaggeration. Even if no individual in earlier eras was as concerned with contributing to societal good as are all modern individuals, it is still possible that modern literature may cause lack of societal concern and damage society.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The Supporter Assumption must logically connect individual well-being to the concern for societal good, and ensure that the latter leads to the former. Try the Assumption Negation technique: what if concern for societal good does not benefit any individual? Then the critic's claim regarding the negative impact of modern literature would be illogical.

Answer choice (C): Individuals' belief in the superiority of their society is irrelevant to determining the impact of modern literature upon individuals who are unconcerned about contributing to societal good.

Answer choice (D): The relative aesthetic merit of literary works is entirely irrelevant to this argument.

Answer choice (E): This may seem like an attractive answer choice at first. However, the author does not require that modern literature be less conducive to societal good than the literature of earlier eras. While this is a potential implication of the critic's argument, it is not an assumption upon which relies. This is a good example of the difference between Assumption and Must Be True questions: an assumption is a statement that precedes (or is required by) the conclusion; an inference is merely something that follows from it. This answer choice is incorrect.

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I don't understand how to come to answer B instead of E. I recognized that E is a bit of a reach in that it is talking about Modern Lit's effect on the society as opposed to all previous eras, but there seems to be slight support for this in that Mordern Lit can lead to damaging effects in society whereas previous eras did not do this in regard to the sympathy towards the protagonists. Furthermore, I don't understand why the author would assume that it is advantageous for some individuals to be concerned about contributing to societal good. It doesn't seem necessary to assume this because one could assume that it is simply not damaging to society or has a neutral effect on society when someone is concerned about contributing to societal good which would still help the conclusion be drawn. Please help me understand. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Micah

[Robert Carroll]

Micah,

The issue with this stimulus is that the conclusion, the last sentence, claims that "modern literature can damage individuals who appropriate this attitude." Nothing in the premises indicated that an attitude of unconcern about contributing to societal good would be harmful to the one holding that attitude. Thus, the author is assuming there is some connection between one's attitude toward societal good and one's own advantage, or else this argument just makes no sense. As no author on the test sets out to make a bad argument, the author must be assuming this necessary connection can be made.

Note that the question type is Assumption. Thus, we must find an assumption that the argument needed in order for it to work in the first place.

Answer choice (E) is not something the author had to assume because it is not necessary to compare modern literature's overall effect on societal good to that of earlier literature in order to reach the conclusion. Answer choice (E) just goes too far - is says something is "generally" true when the conclusion said that "modern literature can damage." Weaker language in the conclusion will only require relatively weaker premises, and thus weaker assumptions, to demonstrate. Remember that for Assumption questions, going "too far" makes an answer choice wrong. You want an answer choice that is necessary for the conclusion.

Robert Carroll

[hrhyoo]

Hi Powerscore,

After reading the stimulus, I prephrased the answer to be something like 'individuals' attitude is influenced by literature' thinking if people are able to just enjoy literature as fictions and not take any life lessons from it, then there should be no problems such as damaging individuals and society at large as suggested in the stimulus. So, I picked D because I interpreted it as people cannot simply appreciate the aesthetic merit of literary works and not be influenced by their moral effects/lessons. Therefore, people would be influenced by literature, making it possible for literature to change a person who was initially concerned about contributing to societal good to NOT.

What have I done wrong so far?

At first glance over all answer choices, I didn't like any of them so on my second reading, I picked D although usually I'd pass on answer choices that contain new information and hence marking it as irrelevant for necessary assumption questions. When necessary assumptions act as a defender, you could have new information in the correct answer choice, correct?

Please help and thank you in advance!


H

[Adam Tyson]

You're correct about new information in an Assumption question, hrhyoo. We can accept new info if you are taking the Defender approach, because those assumptions are about removing weaknesses that the author failed to consider. That's why Assumptions are in the same family as Strengthen and Justify the Conclusion, because of the potential for new info to fix a problem and improve the argument.

The interesting thing about your prephrase is that while it does seem like the author needs to believe that, he covered himself in the conclusion this way: "individuals who appropriate this attitude." In other words, the author isn't arguing that people WILL be influenced in this way, but is instead saying IF someone is influenced in this way it would cause damage. So negating your prephrase with "individuals' attitudes will not be influenced by literature" ends up doing no harm to the argument. The author would say "good, glad to hear it, because that would cause damage."

Focus on the conclusion, and the issue of damage or harm. The author has to believe that becoming unconcerned about about societal good will result in some harm. Answer B is as close as we can get to that sentiment, making it the best answer of the bunch.

[hrhyoo]

Ohhhhh... those few words do make a difference! I fully understand it now. Nevertheless, this was a tough question for me because my prephrase didn't match with any of the answer choices and I crossed out all of the ACs at first. I will need to force myself to remember to use the negation method more often.

Thanks a bunch, Adam!

Hanna

[lolaSur]

Am I correct to say that Answer E follows from the stimulus and is therefore a Must Be True answer, but Answer B is the underlying assumption sustaining the argument?

I see how the argument falls apart when I negate Answer choice B by saying it is to the advantage of no one to be concerned about societal good. (Did i negate this answer correctly?)

I originally chose E. I see how this answer follows from stimulus. I think what made me not want to choose B is the word "advantage" in the answer choice.

When I read the stimulus, I focused more on the idea that being sympathetic to characters who are unconcerned about societal good is a bad idea because this being sympathetic leads to the damaging of unconcerned individuals and society at large.

I don't see how my summary fits into an advantage/disadvantage framework. Could you please explain the word advantage in answer B?

Thank you so much!

(for my reference: L5 AJS q50).

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi LolaSur,

I'd say answer choice (E) would be a fine must be true answer, but you are correct, it is not an assumption answer.

Let's talk about the language in answer choice (B). It says that it is to the advantage of some individuals to be concerned with contributing to the societal good. Avantage is a strange word to use there, but when we look to the conclusion, we see it use a similar concept when it discusses the damage modern literature can cause an individual. Damage is certainly not an advantage, and avoiding damage would be advantageous. Think of advantage here as a benefit. It's helpful to not be damaged.

With that in mind, let's talk about the negation of answer choice (B). Generally, when I negate, I look for the main clause, and go from there. So for this answer choice, I would say
"It is NOT to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good."

If it isn't to their advantage to be concerned about the public good, it's not clear from the argument how we can say they would be damaged by not caring about it. We need it to be the case that it's to the advantage of some people to care about contributing to society. Otherwise, our conclusion doesn't follow.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[ally.ni]

Hi,

I am struggling to understand how "can damage individuals" is equal to "not to the advantage of some individuals". If it is not to the advantage of some individuals, couldn't that be a neutral statement, as in it is not necessarily damaging? I am still having a bit of difficulty in understanding why answer choice B is correct

[Adam Tyson]

It's not that those two things are identical in meaning, ally.ni, but that if something is damaging to someone then it is fair to say it is not to their advantage. The may be things that are neutral, but damage is not advantageous! If we prephrased "being unconcerned causes damage," then it would also be true that being unconcerned is disadvantageous, and therefore it would be better (advantageous) to be concerned.

As suggested earlier in this thread, try the negation technique on this answer. What if there is no advantage to being concerned? If so, then what reason would there be to believe that being unconcerned causes damage? Surely if something has no advantages, it's absence cannot be harmful!