PrepTest 136, Section 4, Question 11
Art critic: The Woerner Journalism Award for criticism(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AThe Woerner Journalism(18 more words not shown)
- BReviews of objects(19 more words not shown)
- CUnless a review(22 more words not shown)
- DThe Woerner Journalism(17 more words not shown)
- EAll writing that(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't a review of a car count as criticism?
A review could tell us whether a car is reliable, comfortable, or worth buying. Those are useful things to evaluate. The critic may be using 'criticism' in a narrower sense, but we need to know what that sense is before declaring Paulsen's work ineligible.
The argument tells us that cars are practical objects rather than works of art. It then says objects that are not art do not reveal important truths about the culture that made them. Let's accept those claims for the argument. Why would they prevent a car review from being criticism?
That connection is missing. We need a rule limiting criticism to reviews of art, or to reviews of objects that reveal those cultural truths. Either would connect the critic's evidence to the proposed exclusion.
What we’re looking for
The principle question asks us to supply that sort of rule. Our job is to help justify this critic's narrow classification, even if we personally think car reviews deserve the award.
Working the answers
- A
We are not told that Paulsen portrays cars as works of art. The critic says they are not works of art; that does not tell us how Paulsen describes them. A rule against presenting practical objects as art cannot justify excluding her unless we know she did that.
- BCorrect
To count as criticism, a review's objects must reveal important truths about the culture that produced them. According to the argument, cars do not reveal those truths because they are not works of art. The reviews therefore fail the stated requirement for criticism, connecting the evidence to the conclusion about the award.
- C
This focuses on why a writer writes, rather than what the reviewed objects actually reveal. Paulsen might intend to reveal cultural truths through her reviews even if, according to the critic, cars cannot reveal those truths. We do not know her purpose. C also refers to the writer's culture, which need not be the culture that produced the objects.
- D
We do not know whether Paulsen considers herself a critic. Winning an award and writing reviews tell us nothing definite about that self-description. This rule needs a fact about her identity that the argument does not supply.
- E
This tells us one way writing can qualify as criticism: reveal important truths about a culture. It does not say that every piece of criticism must do that. Other writing could qualify through another route, so E does not establish that Paulsen's reviews must be excluded.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.