PrepTest 156, Section 4, Question 25
Translator: Dr. Abner, apparently scornful of my translation(61 more words not shown)
The translator's argument is flawed(3 more words not shown)
- Afails to adequately(12 more words not shown)
- Bdraws a conclusion(10 more words not shown)
- Cfails to adequately(18 more words not shown)
- Drejects an argument(11 more words not shown)
- Econcludes that we(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does an accurate translation have to recreate the same feelings, or is faithfully translating the words enough? That is one question I might ask Dr. Abner. But the translator responds differently: we don't know the original audience's response or the author's intention, so the criticism must be unjustified.
Do those unknowns leave us with no clues at all?
We still have an original text to examine. Its content, tone, and the way readers respond to it could give us something to consider when evaluating a translation. That doesn't mean today's readers reveal exactly what an ancient author intended. It means we shouldn't move automatically from 'we don't know the original intention' to 'no criticism about the emotional effect can be justified.'
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I want an answer that identifies what the translator has dismissed too quickly. The absence of complete knowledge doesn't necessarily leave us unable to make any useful judgment.
Working the answers
- A
Having multiple authors wouldn't resolve the reasoning problem. We could still ask whether the translation creates an effect inconsistent with what the authors intended, even if their exact intentions were uncertain. The argument doesn't rely on proving that there was only one author.
- B
The translator isn't arguing that Dr. Abner must be wrong because most people disagree with him. The reference to 'most readers' is part of Abner's description of the translation's effect. It isn't a popularity-based reason the translator offers for rejecting the criticism.
- C
The possibility of no particular intended feeling doesn't expose the leap the translator makes. It is another possible state of the author's intention, which the translator says we don't know. The problem is concluding that this uncertainty prevents justified criticism, not failing to insist that the author must have intended a specific feeling.
- D
Calling Abner scornful isn't the basis of the rejection. The translator doesn't say his personal circumstances make his judgment unreliable. The stated reason is our lack of knowledge about the original response and intention. D describes a different kind of attack.
- ECorrect
This makes the problem more precise. Not knowing exactly what feeling the author intended doesn't mean we can't rule out a particular feeling as the intended response. Identifying the right answer and eliminating a wrong one require different amounts of knowledge.
Imagine an original poem that plainly mourns a loss, while a translation makes the event seem like a joke. The text might give us reason to doubt that amusement was the intended response even if we can't settle whether the author wanted grief, anger, sympathy, or some combination. We needn't claim certainty about the author's whole purpose to identify a mismatch.
That is the possibility the translator overlooks. Our initial thought about examining the original text leaves room for evidence; E identifies the exact judgment that such evidence could support without revealing the precise intended effect.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.