PrepTest 135, Section 4, Question 25
Lutsina: Because futuristic science fiction does not need(80 more words not shown)
Lutsina and Priscilla disagree with(4 more words not shown)
- Asome science fiction(10 more words not shown)
- Bwriters of conventional(11 more words not shown)
- Cfuturistic science fiction(13 more words not shown)
- Denvisaging radically new(14 more words not shown)
- Ecriticism of current(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Science fiction can imagine a society very different from ours. A story might invent relationships among alien species, for example, and use that imagined world to make us question familiar social arrangements. I can see the freedom Lutsina values.
But does that freedom make it the richer source of social criticism? A conventional novel might expose a problem simply by showing our existing society clearly. It needn't invent a radically different arrangement to give us something worth criticizing.
Priscilla favors that second approach. She thinks writers are better at imagining new technologies than escaping familiar social assumptions. Given that limitation, she sees faithful portrayals of current realities as the most effective criticism.
What we’re looking for
We don't have to decide which approach really is better. For the disagreement, compare the speakers' conclusions: Lutsina gives futuristic science fiction greater promise; Priscilla gives conventional fiction the advantage. Keep it a comparison of potential for social criticism, not an all-purpose ranking of writers.
Working the answers
- A
Lutsina claims that science fiction writers can imagine new social arrangements, but doesn't cite a writer who has succeeded in making one convincing. Priscilla's comparison of technological and social imagination doesn't explicitly deny that any writer has succeeded, either. We lack opposed positions on this particular claim about actual accomplishments.
- B
Neither speaker ranks the writers' overall skill. Priscilla compares two kinds of imaginative work within science fiction, while the central debate concerns which kind of fiction offers better social criticism. A writer could be highly skillful without the chosen genre having the advantage at issue here.
- CCorrect
Lutsina says science fiction has the potential to be a richer source of social criticism than conventional fiction. Priscilla says the most effective criticism comes from faithfully presenting current realities, as conventional fiction does. That gives us the opposing positions on which genre has more promise for this purpose.
- D
Priscilla treats the difficulty of imagining new social arrangements as a limitation relevant to criticism. Lutsina doesn't discuss the comparative skill of imagining technologies and arrangements. We can't infer Lutsina's position on this specific alleged shortcoming merely from a favorable overall view of science fiction's potential.
- E
Less effective isn't the same as ineffective. Priscilla can favor conventional fiction while allowing that contrasting current arrangements with radically different ones sometimes produces useful criticism. The dispute concerns which approach offers more, not whether the alternative can ever work.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.