PrepTest 129, Section 2, Question 26
Historian: Flavius, an ancient Roman governor who believed(50 more words not shown)
The historian's argumentation is most(8 more words not shown)
- Afails to consider(14 more words not shown)
- Btreats the satirical(17 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without providing(9 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(9 more words not shown)
- Efails to consider(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Many satirical plays were written about Flavius. Does that tell us what his subjects generally thought of him?
Satire does not necessarily mean hatred. People sometimes gently mock someone they like: a familiar mannerism or unusual habit can be funny without making the person broadly unpopular. We need to know what the plays' tone and reception actually indicate before treating their existence as a measure of public hostility.
Even if the playwrights strongly disliked Flavius, do they represent the whole population? A large number of plays written is not the same as a large number of people agreeing with them. The plays might have attracted little attention, or audiences might have enjoyed the jokes without sharing the writers' judgments.
What we’re looking for
If cutting arts funding harmed the playwrights, they could be angry for a reason the wider public does not share. The flaw question should address the jump from these writers' plays to widespread unpopularity.
Working the answers
- A
The percentage of plays about other subjects does not tell us whether the Flavius satires reflect public opinion. There could be many unrelated plays or few, and the connection between these particular satires and his subjects' views would still need support.
- BCorrect
The playwrights have a possible reason for hostility that other subjects may not share: Flavius withdrew state financial support for the arts. Writers affected by that policy might produce many critical plays even if people outside the arts remained favorably disposed toward him.
The historian treats those plays as a reliable indicator of general popularity without addressing that potential bias. We do not need to prove the plays were dishonest or that Flavius was popular. The point is that the writers' incentives and opinions may make their work a poor measure of the population's views.
- C
The passage explicitly says Flavius actively sought to discourage the arts and describes his removal of their state funding. It therefore does provide a basis for portraying him as unfavorably disposed toward them. The vulnerable inference is the later one about widespread unpopularity, not an unsupported presumption that he opposed the arts.
- D
Flavius's effort could have failed while still upsetting the people it targeted. Artists might have found other funding and continued producing work. The historian does not need to assume the attempt succeeded in order to draw the conclusion about popularity; the problem is treating the resulting plays as representative evidence.
- E
His subjects' views about manual labor and moral temperance might matter to a fuller account of his popularity. But the historian is inferring unpopularity from satirical plays. Knowing whether those virtues were widely admired would not resolve the specific problem of whether the playwrights represent the wider public. B directly addresses that inference.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.