PrepTest 112, Section 1, Question 3
Finnish author Jaakko Mikkeli was accused by Norwegian(78 more words not shown)
The argument in Mikkeli's defense(5 more words not shown)
- AMikkeli has never(2 more words not shown)
- BHalden's book did(5 more words not shown)
- Cnobody related the(13 more words not shown)
- Dthere is a(14 more words not shown)
- EMikkeli is not(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Couldn't someone have told Mikkeli what happened in the book?
The similar plots make me want to investigate the accusation, but they don't tell us how Mikkeli could have obtained Halden's story. His defense does address two possible routes: he couldn't read the Norwegian publication, and there were no published reviews for him to use.
My first thought is a translation. The passage says the book was published only in Norwegian, so we shouldn't invent a published translation. But someone who understands Norwegian could privately translate it or describe the plot to him. Imagine his wife reading it and telling him the story in a language he understands. He could learn the ideas without reading either the original or a review himself.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the defense depends on. To call plagiarism impossible, Mikkeli needs to close that other route to the plot. His inability to read Norwegian doesn't protect the defense if someone explained the story to him before he wrote his own book.
Working the answers
- A
They could have met without discussing the book. A meeting by itself wouldn't establish access to the plot, and the defense doesn't need to deny every possible encounter. The relevant question is what Mikkeli could have learned, not whether the two authors ever occupied the same room.
- B
A popular Norwegian book could still be unreadable to someone who doesn't understand Norwegian. An obscure one could still be described to that person by a friend. Popularity doesn't settle the access problem, so the defense doesn't require the book to have been unpopular.
- CCorrect
This rules out someone giving Mikkeli a detailed account of the plot before he wrote his book. If that happened, not understanding Norwegian and having no published reviews wouldn't make plagiarism impossible. He could have copied a plot he learned from another person.
Notice that we don't have to prove he actually copied anything. The conclusion being defended is that he could not have done so. A route by which he could have learned the plot threatens that conclusion, which is why the defense needs to rule the route out.
- D
A shared myth could offer an innocent explanation for similar plots. But that is a different defense, not something this defense must rely on. Mikkeli could claim lack of access whether or not both stories drew on a common myth. An answer that might help explain the similarity isn't automatically a required assumption.
- E
Knowing a language related to Norwegian doesn't necessarily let someone understand Norwegian. The passage already tells us Mikkeli doesn't understand the language of the book. It doesn't need to deny his knowledge of every related language, and E does nothing about the possibility that another person told him the plot.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.