vjsharma25 wrote:
Critic: Works of literature often present protagonists who scorn allegiance to their society and who advocate detachment rather than civicmindedness. However, modem literature is distinguished from the literature of earlier eras in part because it more frequently treats such protagonists sympathetically. Sympathetic treatment of such characters suggests to readers that one should be unconcerned about contributing to societal good. Thus, modem literature can damage individuals who appropriate this attitude, as well as damage society at large.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the critic's argument relies?
(A) Some individuals in earlier eras were more concerned about contributing to societal good than is any modem individual.
(B) It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good.
(C) Some individuals must believe that their society is better than most before they can become concerned with benefiting it.
(D) The aesthetic merit of some literary works cannot be judged in complete independence of their moral effects.
(E) Modem literature is generally not as conducive to societal good as was the literature of earlier eras.
If someone can explain the reasoning behind choosing an answer choice,it will be good as I couldn't grasp the idea of the argument.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
Meh. This is an argument that some cranky old fart would make. Basically it’s, “New stuff is different, therefore new stuff is dangerous.” I don’t buy it.
Specifically, the argument here is, “New literature suggests that one should be unconcerned about contributing to societal good, therefore modern literature can damage those who read it
and society at large.” What a bunch of bullshit.
The argument is bullshit because it assumes, necessarily, that at least one person is going to
actually be influenced by modern literature, and take actions that result in harm to him or herself, and society at large. If it is
not true that at least one person will take such action, then the argument is destroyed. So, “At least one person would actually be influenced harmfully by modern literature,” is my prediction.
A) Nah. We’re looking for, “At least one person will be influenced to take harmful action as a result of modern literature.” I won’t pay much attention to any other answer unless we check all five and that’s not here somewhere.
B) Nah. Not what we’re looking for.
C) Nah, not what we’re looking for.
D) Nah, not what we’re looking for. Also “aesthetic merit”?! That’s completely irrelevant. This answer is conclusively out.
E) Nah, this is a trap. Just because modern literature “can damage” doesn’t mean that older literature wasn’t even worse. This is conclusively out.
I didn’t find what we’re looking for, so I have to reconsider A-C. Reading it again, I find that A really is a piece of **** because it’s definitely possible that one current human (whomever you like—the Dalai Lama? Oprah? I don’t care) is the greatest human ever. Even if that’s true, the argument about modern literature is completely unaffected. A is simply irrelevant, so it can’t be the necessary assumption.
I think I like B on a second reading. Because if B is not true, the argument becomes, “It is to the advantage of nobody that they be concerned with contributing to societal good.” And that, by itself, would be a devastating weakener. (Because the conclusion said that people will harm themselves by not being interested in societal good.) Because B, if untrue, destroys the argument, we can say that B is
necessary to the argument.
C is irrelevant. The argument was simply not about believing one society is better than another.
So B is our answer
_________________