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. 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.
- 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.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions