Muriel: I admire Favilla’s novels, but she does not deserve to be cons

Question

Muriel: I admire Favilla’s novels, but she does not deserve to be considered a great writer. The point is that, no matter how distinctive her style may be, her subject matter is simply not varied enough.

John: I think you are wrong to use that criterion. A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter; however, a great writer must at least have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply.

John’s statements commit him to which one of the following position?

(A) Even if the subject matter in Favilla’s writings is not particularly varied, she should not thereby be excluded from being considered a great writer.

(B) Even if Favilla cannot explore any particular theme deeply in her writings, she should not thereby be excluded from being considered a great writer.

(C) If Favilla has explored some particular theme exceptionally deeply in her writings, she deserves to be considered a great writer.

(D) If the subject matter in Favilla’s writings were exceptionally varied, she would not deserve to be considered a great writer.

(E) If Favilla’s writings show no evidence of a distinctive style, she does not deserve to be considered a great writer.

jedit · Answer

It should be  C .

(A) Even if the subject matter in Favilla’s writings is not particularly varied, she should not thereby be excluded from being considered a great writer. - This would be the best of the rest choice. Muriel stated Favilla's writing is not varied enough. The key aspect missing here is John's assertion that an author must have the ability to explore a subject deeply.

(B)  Even if Favilla cannot explore any particular theme deeply in her writings , she should not thereby be excluded from being considered a great writer. - It goes against John's point of view.

(C) If Favilla has explored some particular theme exceptionally deeply in her writings, she deserves to be considered a great writer. - Favilla meets the minimum criteria set for a great author in John's mind. - Correct.

(D) If the subject matter in Favilla’s writings were exceptionally varied, she would not deserve to be considered a great writer. - Out of Scope. Nowhere does John say that great authors do not vary their writing. Muriel is against calling Favilla a great author and John is against that assertion, i.e. he is 'for' classifying Muriel as a great author.

(E) If Favilla’s writings show no evidence of a distinctive style, she does not deserve to be considered a great writer. - Muriel is against calling Favilla a great author and John's position is opposite of that. This is straying way out of scope.

bidskamikaze · Answer

The questions asks what can be reasonable concluded from John's statement.
Options A and C are the two most selected choices, so let's look at them individually.

(C) If Favilla has explored some particular theme exceptionally deeply in her writings, she deserves to be considered a great writer.
John says that for a writer to be considered great, the writer must at least have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply. 
However, is the ability to explore a particular theme deeply  SUFFICIENT  for that writer to be considered great?  NO! .
Therefore, we cannot reasonably conclude option C.

(A) Even if the subject matter in Favilla’s writings is not particularly varied, she should not thereby be excluded from being considered a great writer.
 CORRECT.  " A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter"  < This statement helps us conclude option A.

A is correct.

RamseyGooner · Answer

I remember reading a post by  Bunuel  that said, A -> B then B-> A cannot be concluded but ~B->~A can be concluded.
I think, this question fits that framework, i.e., Great Writer -> Deep Explorer but DE -> GW is wrong. Hence, Eliminate C.

Coming to A, even if SM is not varied - that's good because atleast John does not care about SM. All he cares about is exploring deeply which still is very much on the cards. So, we good.

Any comments  Bunuel ? Would love know if I got the essence of your framework correctly.

Fdambro294 · Answer

RamseyGooner

Just in case Bunuel doesn’t come, I’ll give you my thoughts (maybe they will be helpful).

John writes:

(1)
“A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter.”

IF: a person CAN be considered a great writer —————> THEN: NOT required to have diversity in subject matter

(2)
“However, a great writer must at least have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply.”

IF: a great writer ———> THEN: at the very least, that person must have the ability to explore a theme deeply.

(C)”if Favilia has explored some particular theme deeply in her writings, she DESERVES to be considered a great writer.”

What’s given in the 2nd mapped statement in the “IF-THEN” conditionals above is just one pre-requirement for a person to be considered a great writer.

The formal logical fallacy made in (C), with respect to the (2nd) mapped statement above, is given the nickname of the “mistaken reversal.”

Just because one of the pre-conditions is met to be considered a great writer, this does not necessarily mean the person IS (“deserves to be called”) a great writer.

There may be many other pre-requirements in John’s mind beyond having the ability to explore deep subject matter. Just because one pre-requirement is met, does not ensure that the person can be considered a great writer.

(In formal “logic speak” - affirming the necessary condition does not ensure that he sufficient condition will occur)

C is not a position that John is committed to.

(A)”Even if the subject matter in Favilia’s writings is not particularly varied, she should NOT be Excluded from being considered a great writer.”

This is essentially what John’s argument is.

The argument he responds to is saying:

Since F.’s subject matter is not varied enough, then F. can NOT be considered a great writer.

Answer choice (A) is not saying that if the subject matter is varied, then the author MUST be considered a great writer.

Rather, answer (A) says that we should not exclude F. from being considered a great writer (in other words, F. is ELIGIBLE to be considered a great writer) even though the subject matter might not be varied enough.

This is essentially the position that John takes when he argues against the original author.

A is the correct answer.

Mapping the logic out definitely helps, but it is also helpful to sometimes step back and just think about each person’s position.

Another good thing to look out for: the modifier words used.

Saying that someone is “not excluded” from A ———> is not exactly the same claim as saying that a person IS part of A.

When you say a someone is “not excluded”, you are not giving your position on whether the person definitely is “included.”

I hope that didn’t hurt your head as much as it did mine…..

Sometimes the LSAT is just not fun.

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Muriel: I admire Favilla’s novels, but she does not deserve to be cons

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Muriel: I admire Favilla’s novels, but she does not deserve to be cons

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards