PrepTest 137, Section 3, Question 20
Principle: One should criticize the works or actions(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AJarrett knew that(16 more words not shown)
- BJarrett's criticism of(23 more words not shown)
- CJarrett knew that(5 more words not shown)
- DJarrett hoped to(5 more words not shown)
- EJarrett did not(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Nobody benefited. Does that mean Jarrett never hoped or expected anyone to benefit?
The principle requires two things before criticism is allowed: it must not seriously harm the person criticized, and the critic must hope or expect to benefit someone else. Missing either requirement is enough to rule the criticism out. Meeting both wouldn't by itself establish that the criticism should occur.
The application focuses on benefit. The essay's defects were so obvious that pointing them out helped no one. But a person can try to help and fail. Jarrett might have thought a classmate would learn from the criticism, even if that expectation turned out to be mistaken.
What we’re looking for
So connect the outcome to Jarrett's state of mind. If Jarrett knew that pointing out these defects would benefit no one, the appeal to a hoped-for or expected benefit would fail. That would justify the application without our also having to show serious harm.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Jarrett knew the criticism would benefit no one. That rules out the hope or expectation of helping someone else on which the principle makes acceptable criticism depend. We now have more than an unsuccessful outcome: we have Jarrett's knowledge that the criticism would not help. That defeats one required condition and supports saying Jarrett should not have made it.
- B
This concerns when the criticism would actually benefit Ostertag. It doesn't establish what Jarrett hoped or expected, and it only addresses one possible beneficiary. Jarrett could have hoped another classmate would learn from hearing the criticism. Also, obvious defects don't by themselves tell us exactly what Ostertag had noticed.
- C
Antagonizing someone isn't necessarily seriously harming them. A criticism might annoy a person without doing serious harm. C also says Jarrett knew it might antagonize Ostertag; it doesn't establish the serious harm that would violate the first requirement.
- D
Wanting prestige doesn't exclude also wanting to help someone else. Jarrett might hope both to impress the class and to teach classmates something about writing. The principle requires a hoped-for or expected benefit to another person, not the complete absence of a personal motive.
- E
Ostertag isn't the only person whose benefit counts. Jarrett could expect the criticism to help classmates avoid similar errors even while expecting no benefit to Ostertag. E also addresses expectation without ruling out hope. A is broader: Jarrett knew no one would benefit, so the relevant justification is unavailable.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.