PrepTest 119, Section 3, Question 13
It is characteristic of great artists generally, and(48 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AIt assumes, without(26 more words not shown)
- BIt assumes, without(15 more words not shown)
- CIt assumes, without(17 more words not shown)
- DIt assumes, without(13 more words not shown)
- EIt assumes, without(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being a great writer and understanding society might go together. But why should every increase in writing ability bring an increase in social insight?
The premise describes a characteristic of great writers. The conclusion starts ranking them: the greater the writer, the more perceptive that person must be about society. Those are different claims. Two excellent writers could both understand their society well without the better writer being the more politically insightful one.
What we’re looking for
Think about the difference between having a quality and having more of it. The premise gives us the first kind of connection. It doesn't supply a scale that lets us measure someone's social insight by the degree of their literary greatness. That is the leap I'd look for in the flaw answers. We don't need to deny that great writers often have insight; we need to question the extra claim about how the two qualities increase together.
Working the answers
- A
The premise expressly includes great writers, so the author doesn't need to infer their characteristic merely from the broader category of artists. We also have one particular characteristic under discussion, not a claim that writers possess every characteristic of every artist. A doesn't describe the unsupported ranking in the conclusion.
- B
This describes turning a sometimes claim into an always claim. Our argument's more specific jump is from possessing two qualities together to having more of one whenever one has more of the other. Even if all great writers had some social insight, we still couldn't rank their insight by their writing ability. B misses that change from having a quality to degrees of that quality.
- C
Insight into politics doesn't rule out insight into other subjects, and the author never says that it does. A writer could also understand sports, family relationships, or science. None of that would resolve whether greater writing ability means greater social insight.
- D
The argument doesn't exclude people who aren't great artists from understanding their societies. Someone could be an ordinary writer, or not a writer at all, and still make a perceptive criticism. The author discusses a connection among great writers without claiming that they alone can be insightful.
- ECorrect
The first quality is greatness as a writer; the second is perceptiveness about society. The premise says great writers characteristically have that perceptiveness. The conclusion assumes more greatness must come with more perceptiveness.
That additional relationship hasn't been established. Knowing that the two qualities tend to occur together doesn't tell us they rise in step. E states the particular change we noticed while reading, even though it uses more abstract wording.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.