QUESTION TEXT: Literature professor: Critics charge that the work…
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.
___________
- 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.
- 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” - 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!
- This isn’t the flaw. Even if the critics’ claims are correct, they’re still irrelevant to their conclusion.
- 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.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Harvette says
I believe answer choice A is wrong because the conclusion has not been proven accurate because the evidence is weak/not relevant to the conclusion. The conclusion itself is not irrelevant, but the claims made to support that conclusion are.
FounderGraeme Blake says
I wrote the critics “political conclusions”, not the conclusion of their argument. They’ve made conclusions about Sauk’s politics, and then used those to make an argument about Sauk’s aesthetic merit.
Perhaps I could have worked it more clearly. But on the other hand this is probably practice for the type of close reading the LSAT demands :)