LSAT 143 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Literature professor: Critics charge that the work of…

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The critics are wrong to say that S. N. Sauk’s work lacks aesthetic merit.

REASONING: The critics have focussed on how Sauk’s work differs from C. F. Providence’s in terms of politics. However the critics have not shown that Sauk’s work is any less well written than Providence’s.

ANALYSIS: The critics are making an argument about beauty, but they use evidence relating to political views. So they’re using irrelevant evidence.

___________

1. The literature professor didn’t say the critics are wrong in their political conclusions. The professor was merely arguing that these conclusions weren’t relevant.
2. Having aesthetic merit isn’t the criteria. The criterion is “having as much aesthetic merit as Providence’s work”.
   So the critics are wrong because they haven’t shown Sauk’s work has less aesthetic merit than Providence’s.
   There’s a big difference between “has some merit” and “as good as Providence’s”
3. The motivations of the critics aren’t the issue. The problem is that the critics made a bad argument – their evidence is irrelevant to their conclusion!
4. This isn’t the flaw. Even if the critics’ claims are correct, they’re still irrelevant to their conclusion.
5. CORRECT. The critics are arguing about the aesthetic value of Sauk’s work, but their evidence is about the politics of Sauk’s work. This is irrelevant evidence.