QUESTION TYPE: Point At Issue
ARGUMENTS: Lutsina says that Sci-Fi can be a richer source of social criticism than conventional fiction, because authors are free to invent new social arrangements.
Priscilla says Sci-Fi writers are not good at inventing new social arrangements – they are limited by current reality. So, the best social criticism comes from clear presentation of current reality.
ANALYSIS: Lutsina thinks Sci-Fi has the most potential for social criticism. Priscilla thinks conventional fiction has more potential. That’s all there is to it.
- Priscilla doesn’t say whether all Sci-Fi writers utterly failed to invent new realities. And Lutsina doesn’t say that any Sci-Fi writers succeeded – she just said they have potential. The two authors can’t disagree on this point.
- Neither author said who is more skillful. Lutsina says the genre of sci-fi makes it easier to critique social arrangements. Priscilla doesn’t say why Sci-Fi writers have found it hard to invent new social structures.
- CORRECT. Lutsina agrees, Priscilla disagrees.
- Lutsina doesn’t even mention technology, this can’t possibly be a source of disagreement. Priscilla has no clear opinion on this point.
- Priscilla doesn’t say whether descriptions of radically different arrangements would be useful. She just says Sci-Fi writers have had a hard time creating any.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly