PrepTest 111, Section 1, Question 14
Novelists cannot become great as long as they(46 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ANovelists require some(12 more words not shown)
- BNo great novelist(6 more words not shown)
- CParticipation in life,(9 more words not shown)
- DNovelists cannot be(11 more words not shown)
- EKnowledge of the(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Couldn't the novelist have gained that experience before becoming an academic?
The argument says academia prevents the immersion in everyday life needed for an intuitive grasp of its emotions. My first reaction is about the timeline. Even if academic life prevents that immersion now, perhaps the novelist already had years of it. Taking an academic job wouldn't automatically tell us what the person experienced before taking it.
I can see the author's intended contrast: schools help develop observation and analysis, but the emotional grasp at issue requires a different kind of contact with life. The author uses that limitation to conclude that novelists cannot become great while remaining in academia. That first sentence is the conclusion to examine, rather than a fact we must simply accept.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption the argument requires. Based on my initial objection, I might expect something addressing earlier life experience. But that's one possible gap to investigate, not a guarantee of what the answer will say. We need a claim the author has to rely on, so let's check what each choice would do for this argument.
Working the answers
- A
The author doesn't need a rule requiring impartiality for emotional understanding. Perhaps that understanding requires some impartiality; perhaps it doesn't. Either way, that isn't the connection on which the conclusion about greatness rests. We shouldn't invent an additional requirement just because it sounds plausible.
- B
The passage calls observation and analysis useful. Useful skills needn't be skills every great novelist must possess. Someone could be great through other strengths, so the argument doesn't require this stronger claim about all great novelists.
- C
This promises that a combination of participation and impartial observation makes a novelist great. The author doesn't need such a recipe for guaranteed greatness. Showing that someone lacks something required would be enough to rule out greatness, even if having that thing wouldn't guarantee greatness. C supplies a much stronger claim in the other direction and adds impartial observation to the recipe.
- DCorrect
Here is a more basic gap than the timing issue I initially noticed: why does missing an intuitive grasp of everyday emotions rule out being a great novelist at all?
The argument needs that grasp to be required for greatness. Without D, a novelist could lack it and still be great, so the author's reason would no longer establish the conclusion. D supplies exactly that missing requirement. It doesn't say emotional understanding alone makes someone great; other qualities might be needed too. It says greatness isn't possible without this one quality.
- E
General knowledge of emotions isn't necessarily the same as the intuitive grasp the argument describes. A novelist might learn facts about emotions through observation and analysis without gaining that more immediate understanding. The argument can allow such knowledge while insisting that the intuitive grasp requires immersion.
E also doesn't supply the missing connection to greatness. It discusses how knowledge is acquired, while D explains why lacking the particular grasp at issue disqualifies someone from greatness. The argument doesn't require E's broader restriction on what observation can teach.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.