PrepTest 140, Section 3, Question 14
Some theorists argue that literary critics should strive(55 more words not shown)
The argument's conclusion follows logically(8 more words not shown)
- AAny critic who(19 more words not shown)
- BIf it is(16 more words not shown)
- CCritics are more(18 more words not shown)
- DThe less readers(18 more words not shown)
- ECritics who try(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does a goal have to be fully achievable to be worth pursuing?
First, make 'value-neutral' concrete. A critic could explain what a novel seems to mean without telling readers whether the novel is good or bad. The theorists want that separation so readers can form their own judgments. I can see the appeal: help me understand the work, then let me decide what I think of it.
The author's reply is that completely neutral criticism is impossible. Even if we accept that, why should critics stop trying to be neutral? An imperfect attempt could still be worthwhile.
Imagine someone arguing that ending all world hunger is an unattainable goal. Even granting that claim for the example, it wouldn't automatically follow that working toward it is inappropriate. Progress could still matter. The same distinction applies here: failing to reach a perfect endpoint doesn't by itself settle whether the goal is worth pursuing.
What we’re looking for
But this question asks us to make the author's conclusion follow. We need the very connection we were questioning: if complete neutrality is impossible, critics shouldn't try for it. A rule tying impossibility to an inappropriate goal would defeat the theorists' recommendation.
Working the answers
- A
This supports the theorists' recommendation to strive for neutrality when doing so helps readers judge for themselves. We need support for the author's claim that this is an inappropriate goal. A doesn't connect the impossibility of complete neutrality with a reason not to pursue it.
- BCorrect
The argument says completely neutral criticism cannot be produced. B says that if it cannot be produced, critics shouldn't even try to be neutral. Put those together and the theorists' recommendation to strive for neutrality is mistaken.
'Cannot' and 'impossible' express the same condition here. And saying critics shouldn't even try directly conflicts with saying they should strive to do it. We might reject B as a real-world principle, but assuming it makes this conclusion follow.
- C
Which works critics choose to discuss doesn't establish what goal they should have when discussing them. Favoring books they like could be part of why complete neutrality is difficult, but the argument already gives us impossibility. It needs a rule about what follows from that fact.
- D
Readers may need to understand a work before evaluating it well. That helps explain why interpretation could be useful. It doesn't show that critics should abandon a goal they cannot achieve perfectly.
- E
This says trying to avoid value judgments reduces critics' influence. That could give the theorists a reason to keep pursuing their goal despite imperfect results. It doesn't support the author's move from 'complete neutrality is impossible' to 'neutrality is an inappropriate goal.'
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.