#25 - Lutsina: Because futuristic science fiction does not

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (C)

Your task in this Point at Issue question is to select the answer choice containing a statement
concerning which Lustina and Priscilla would disagree. They each present an argument:

Lustina:

Premise: futuristic science fiction does not need to represent current social realities

Sub Conclusion: thus, its writers can envisage radically new social arrangements

Conclusion: therefore, it has the potential to be a richer source of social criticism than is
conventional fiction

Priscilla:

Premise: futuristic science fiction writers more skillfully envisage radically new
technologies than new social arrangements

Sub Conclusion: so, writers’ imaginations are constrained by current realities

Conclusion: thus, the most effective social criticism results from faithfully presenting the
current social values for critical examination, as happens in conventional
fiction

Your prephrase is that Lutsina and Priscilla both express an opinion, and disagree, concerning
whether conventional fiction or futuristic science fiction is a richer, or more effective source,
or social criticism. Lutstina concludes futuristic science fiction is better, while Priscilla prefers
conventional fiction. The correct answer choice will reflect this point at issue between them.
The incorrect answers will contain a statement concerning which at least one of the speakers has
expressed no opinion or concerning which the speakers both express an opinion but agree with each
other.

Answer choice (A): Priscilla does not express an opinion concerning whether at least one science
fiction writer has succeeded in envisaging a convincing, radical new social arrangement.

Answer choice (B): Neither speaker addresses the general skill of science versus conventional fiction
writers.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Lustina would agree that futuristic science
fiction has the greater promise, while Priscilla thinks conventional fiction has greater promise.

Answer choice (D): Neither speaker addresses envisaging radically new technologies rather than
radically new social arrangements as a shortcoming of futuristic science fiction.

Answer choice (E): Neither speaker expresses an opinion concerning this statement.

[pmuffley]

Wait, I'm confused. You restated Priscilla's premise as "Futuristic science fiction writers more skillfully envisage radically new technologies than new social arrangements". Answer choice D says, "envisaging radically new technologies rather than radically new social arrangements is a shortcoming of futuristic science fiction"

Priscilla says, "That futuristic science fiction writers more skillfully envisage radically new technologies than new social arrangements shows how writers’ imaginations are constrained by current realities. Because of this limitation..." Priscilla says that it is a limitation of futuristic science fiction but you said neither of the people say that. Is that not what this is saying almost verbatim?

I'm confused why D is wrong.

Thank you for your help!

[Adam Tyson]

The "limitation" that Priscilla is referring to, pmuffley, is that "writers’ imaginations are constrained by current realities." That is not explicitly a shortcoming of science fiction, but of all writing! That's why she thinks that social criticism in fiction should focus on examining the current social realities rather than trying to envision radically new ones.

Also, Priscilla never addresses the role that envisaging radically new technologies plays in science fiction. For all we know, she might say that is not a shortcoming at all, but is exactly what makes sci-fi great stuff!

We just cannot know from this text what Priscilla thinks about answer D. She might agree, but she might not, and that means it's a loser.