PrepTest 118, Section 1, Question 16
Literary critic: Often the heirs of a successful(66 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- ASome writers whose(16 more words not shown)
- BWriters who achieve(20 more words not shown)
- CMost successful writers'(14 more words not shown)
- DMany posthumously published(12 more words not shown)
- ESome heirs of(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Destroy it immediately? That seems drastic.
I understand the concern. A writer may carefully edit and polish the work they publish while leaving behind manuscripts they think aren't good enough. If heirs later publish those manuscripts, the writer could become associated with work they deliberately kept out of print. That could undermine the reputation the writer worked to build.
But is destruction the only way to prevent that? Could the writer leave instructions against publication, or keep a digital manuscript protected so that others cannot access it? Those possibilities would need to work in practice; we can't simply assume they do. Still, they make me question whether destroying the work is the best advice.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken the recommendation. My initial prediction is another way to prevent unwanted publication without destroying the manuscript. An answer could also give us a different reason to hold off. The important claim to challenge is that the writer should destroy this recently completed work immediately.
Working the answers
- A
A writer who becomes recognized only after death isn't the situation the critic focuses on: an already successful writer deciding what to do with a manuscript they don't want published. A doesn't tell us that such a writer has misjudged this work, or give a reason to preserve it despite that judgment.
- B
The likelihood that private correspondence will become public fits the critic's concern about losing control after death. It doesn't show why keeping an unwanted manuscript would be better than destroying it. If anything, it makes the risk of later exposure easier to understand.
- CCorrect
This supplies a different reason to wait. A successful writer's first judgment of a newly finished work may be unnecessarily harsh, and the writer often changes that judgment later.
If the writer destroys the manuscript immediately, there is no work left to reconsider. Something they now reject could later seem worth preserving or publishing. C doesn't guarantee that every rejected manuscript is good. It shows why treating the current verdict as final can make the critic's irreversible advice a bad idea.
- D
Some books published after death are books their authors would have wanted published. But the advice concerns a recently completed manuscript the writer has decided against publishing. D doesn't tell us that these are the same works or that the writer will reconsider. C directly addresses that possibility.
- E
The heirs' doubts about their ability to judge quality don't tell the writer what to do with the manuscript now. Such heirs might publish it anyway. Their uncertainty could fit the critic's concern, but it doesn't establish a reason to destroy the work immediately or a reason that the advice is unsound.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.