PrepTest 143, Section 3, Question 11
Literature professor: Critics charge that the work of(91 more words not shown)
The literature professor argues that(15 more words not shown)
- Athe claims made(7 more words not shown)
- BSauk's work has(2 more words not shown)
- Cthese critics are(7 more words not shown)
- Dthe claims made(12 more words not shown)
- Ethe claims made(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Let's separate the quality of the writing from whose ideas it borrows. Sauk follows Providence's artistic approach but uses it to serve different political views. Imagine a follower borrowing a left-leaning writer's techniques to promote a right-leaning position. That could explain why the original writer and some critics dislike the result. It doesn't, by itself, tell us how skillfully the follower writes.
The professor grants the critics' facts: Sauk is more an imitator than an innovator, and his politics differ from Providence's. The response is, “Even accepting that, how have you shown that his writing is less subtle or powerful?” The professor challenges the connection from those facts to the judgment about artistic quality.
What we’re looking for
That's what the question asks us to identify. We aren't choosing whether Sauk is a good writer. We're explaining why the professor thinks the critics haven't established that he is a bad one.
Working the answers
- A
The professor doesn't reject the supporting claims as false. The passage expressly grants Sauk's imitation and different political views. The objection is that accepting those facts still leaves the critics' conclusion unsupported.
- B
The professor hasn't established that Sauk's work has aesthetic merit. Showing that an argument against a writer fails isn't the same as proving the writer is good. The response leaves the quality question open while challenging these reasons for answering it negatively.
- C
Some critics reject Sauk's politics, but the professor doesn't base the response on an accusation that political hostility motivates them. The key objection is that the critics haven't connected imitation and political disagreement to inferior craftsmanship. Their possible motives aren't the stated basis for rejecting the argument.
- D
This questions whether the supporting facts have been established. The professor instead accepts them for the discussion. Notice the difference between “You haven't shown he imitates Providence” and “Even if he imitates Providence, why does that make his writing worse?” The professor takes the second approach.
- ECorrect
The relevance of the supporting claims hasn't been shown. The critics need to explain why Sauk's borrowing and different politics make his writing less subtly or powerfully crafted. The professor grants those features but says their effect on artistic merit has yet to be established. That targets the missing connection, not the truth of the premises.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.