PrepTest 109, Section 4, Question 4
Muriel: I admire Favilla's novels, but she does(65 more words not shown)
John's statements commit him to(6 more words not shown)
- AEven if the(21 more words not shown)
- BEven if Favilla(21 more words not shown)
- CIf Favilla has(17 more words not shown)
- DIf the subject(17 more words not shown)
- EIf Favilla's writings(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
You can enjoy a novel without calling its author great. Think of an entertaining book for a flight: liking the story doesn't commit you to ranking the writing among the best. So Muriel's opening isn't itself a problem.
Her reason for denying greatness is more debatable. Must a great writer use a wide range of subjects? Why couldn't someone do remarkable work by exploring a single theme deeply? John makes that distinction explicit: variety isn't required, but the ability to explore a theme deeply is.
What we’re looking for
We're asked what John's statements commit him to. I would keep those two positions in view. He rejects variety as a requirement and insists on depth as a requirement. He hasn't yet evaluated whether Favilla meets the standards that do matter, so we should avoid turning his response into a blanket endorsement of her writing.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
A lack of variety shouldn't, by itself, disqualify Favilla. That's exactly what follows from John's claim that a great writer doesn't need diversity in subject matter.
“Should not thereby be excluded” matters. It doesn't say she definitely is great. It says this particular reason isn't enough to rule her out. John could reject Muriel's criterion and still find some different problem with Favilla's writing.
- B
This removes the requirement John explicitly gives. He says a great writer must at least have the ability to explore a theme deeply. If Favilla cannot explore any theme deeply, she fails that requirement. John cannot agree that this inability should leave her eligibility untouched.
- C
Meeting a requirement doesn't guarantee the final judgment. John says great writers must be able to explore a theme deeply; he doesn't say that anyone who explores a theme deeply is therefore great.
There might be other requirements too. We don't need to name them to see the limitation. The phrase “must at least” gives us a minimum condition, not a complete recipe for greatness.
- D
Not requiring variety isn't the same as forbidding it. A great writer could cover many subjects or very few, as far as John's stated rule about variety goes. He gives us no basis for disqualifying Favilla because her subject matter is exceptionally varied.
- E
John says nothing about requiring a distinctive style. That topic appears in Muriel's comment, not in a standard John adopts. He might think style matters, or he might not; his remarks don't commit him to E's reason for excluding Favilla.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.