LR Question 14 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Some theorists argue that literary critics should…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: The theorists are wrong, critics shouldn’t strive to be value neutral.
REASONING: Critics can never achieve the goal of being value neutral.
ANALYSIS: Here’s a quote I read once:
“Why not aim for the stars? You may not reach them, but you probably won’t come up with a handful of mud either.”
Many of the goals we pursue are unattainable, yet it still makes sense to pursue them, because we move in the right direction.
For instance, you want a 180. Frankly, I doubt you’ll get a 180 (I didn’t get 180). So according to these theorists, you should just give up, it’s pointless.
Fuck those guys, right? Who cares that you won’t attain the goal of 180. If you improve 10-20 points in the attempt, then the attempt was very worthwhile!
In other words, it may be useful to attempt to be value neutral, even if we can never become 100% value neutral. But since we want to prove the theorists wrong, we should eliminate this possibility and say that goals are worthless if they can’t be achieved.
___________
- We’re trying to prove that critics shouldn’t try to produce value neutral criticism.
- CORRECT. It is impossible to be 100% value neutral, so this answer tells us not to try.
- This shows a way that critics might fail to be neutral. But this doesn’t prove that critics shouldn’t try to be neutral.
- The stimulus is talking about what critics should do. Readers are only mentioned to describe a benefit of being value neutral. The argument is not about readers!
Also, it’s not clear how readers will be affected if critics don’t attempt to be value neutral. - This weakens the argument by showing that it can be useful to try to avoid value judgments.
Recap: The question begins with “Some theorists argue that literary critics should”. It is a Sufficient Assumption question. To practice more Sufficient Assumption questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
More Resources for Sufficient Assumption Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Intro to Conditional Reasoning: Learn conditional reasoning basics.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Sufficient Assumption questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers sufficient assumption questions.
I’m a bit confused with this part:
“In other words, it may be useful to attempt to be value neutral, even if we can never become 100% value neutral. Since we want to prove the theorists correct, we should eliminate this possibility and say that goals are worthless if they can’t be achieved.”
Don’t we want to prove the theorists incorrect- as “some theorists are mistaken” is what’s stated in the conclusion?
That’s correct, thank you. I’ve updated the explanation.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
Little does he know my last 2 prep tests were 180’s (then again I’ve burned 1500 hours of my life so far into this). God speed though, your explanations are indispensable
Don’t we want to prove the theorist wrong, and the author right?
Ah yes, that’s correct, thank you. Fixed the typo.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to address the point.
These descriptions would already be amazing if they were completely sterile and emotionless, but your candor makes them all the better. Saying “fuck those guys” is a nice reminder that sometimes it’s possible to have fun preparing for the LSAT.