PrepTest 120, Section 3, Question 13
Writer: In the diplomat's or lawyer's world, a(39 more words not shown)
The writer's argument requires assuming(5 more words not shown)
- ALanguage that has(13 more words not shown)
- BLiterary documents are(8 more words not shown)
- CLawyers and diplomats(10 more words not shown)
- DThe issues that(13 more words not shown)
- EPeople express themselves(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't clear writing also be good writing?
I understand why a lawyer or diplomat would want to prevent misunderstandings. The stakes can be serious: someone could end up in prison undeservedly, or a poorly understood statement could cause an international incident. In that setting, communicating precisely matters more than winning praise for beautiful prose.
But that doesn't establish that precision strips the writing of all literary merit. The writer describes legal and diplomatic language as stilted—awkwardly formal—and without literary value, then explains this by its design to prevent misinterpretation. Couldn't well-crafted language do both jobs? We need a reason clarity and literary value are being treated as competing aims.
What we’re looking for
For the required assumption, look for that connection. The writer needs some tradeoff between avoiding misunderstanding and preserving literary value. The serious consequences explain wanting clarity; they don't, by themselves, explain why literary value has to be sacrificed.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This links literary value with a greater chance of misunderstanding. That supplies the tradeoff the writer relies on: making the language less open to misinterpretation comes at the expense of literary value.
If language with literary value were just as unlikely to be misunderstood, why would preventing misunderstandings explain stripping the writing of that value? The author's explanation would lose its connection. A doesn't claim that every beautiful sentence is misunderstood; it gives the comparative relationship the reasoning needs.
- B
The argument doesn't have to rank the importance of entire kinds of documents. A novel could be important and a legal document could be important too. The issue is why designing one kind of language to avoid misunderstanding is supposed to eliminate its literary value.
- C
This compares how often groups of people are misunderstood. The argument concerns how language is designed and the supposed cost of that design. It doesn't need a broad comparison between lawyers, diplomats, and novelists, who may themselves write very clearly. Higher stakes don't establish the relative frequency of misunderstandings.
- D
Other people might be intensely interested in these issues. A defendant's family might care deeply about the legal dispute, for example. Who finds the subject interesting doesn't connect clarity with lack of literary merit.
- E
A general tendency to be more cautious when stakes are high could help explain why someone wants precise language. But that part already makes sense. It still wouldn't explain why caution must cost literary value. The writer also needn't make a claim about how people in every other important situation behave.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.