It is now a common complaint that the electronic media have

Can anyone explain how C is better than D in this question.

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

Thank you for the reply. C mentions cultural change which actually cannot be implied. Its more of a generalisation than implication of whats mentioned in the text. Whereas D mentions claim is unwarranted. Unwarranted in itself is not a strong word. It merely states that the claim is unjustified. Plz share ur thoughts where my line of thinking is going wrong.

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

(D) refers to the historical reference being evidence that the particular opinion is unwarranted. By itself the historical reference does not really indicate anything about the validity of the currently held beliefs, therefore it is not used in this context for the sake of providing evidence, but more as an example that goes out and shows that there is a possibility that the current generation is not understanding the evolutionary change that is taking place...The author attempts to connect the historical misjudgement with that of the current generation, and as such argues that there is a possibility that the current generation is making the same error of judgement as done in the past, when another cultural change was being resisted.

Agree with C. Although D seems tempting, it is not a correct answer.

(D) evidence that the claim that the intellectual skills required and fostered by the literary media are being lost is unwarranted
the argument does not provide evidence that the intellectual skills required and fostered by the literary media will not be lost. On the contrary, it provides an example, which as well was thought to be detrimental, but did not have the expected result.

C supports the conclusion.
The conclusion can be paraphrased from "alteration of human mind rather than devolution" to "changes of perspectives of people rather than any lost intellectual skills".

The question is boldface.
There are 2 types of question concerning the logic of the argument: boldface and logic of order
The latter is relating to the flow of the logic of the whole argument (passage).

hello, what is the source of this question? Thank you.
I think this is a non-gmat question.

If you want to know the source, simply copy the first sentence or two into your search engine and see what comes up!

This question is from the June 2007 LSAT, which is available for free online.

yeah, I did look up the sources of many questions. In fact, I myself have posted at least 10 questions from reliable sources. Nevertheless, I do not know exactly how experts find the sources of the questions.
Anyway, I appreciate your helps/ Thanks a lot!

It is now a common complaint that the electronic media have corroded the intellectual skills required and fostered by the literary media. But several centuries ago the complaint was that certain intellectual skills, such as the powerful memory and extemporaneous eloquence that were intrinsic to oral culture, were being destroyed by the spread of literacy. So, what awaits us is probably a mere alteration of the human mind rather than its devolution.

The reference to the complaint of several centuries ago that powerful memory and extemporaneous eloquence were being destroyed plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
Analysis: bold face/inference
Conclusion: electronic media may alter the human brain rather than decrease the intelligence
The old evidence shows/supports the same that literacy like electronic media alter the human mind not decrease the intelligence

(A) evidence supporting the claim that the intellectual skills fostered by the literary media are being destroyed by the electronic media --> no it support the conclusion

(B) an illustration of the general hypothesis being advanced that intellectual abilities are inseparable from the means by which people communicate --> same as A

(C) an example of a cultural change that did not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the human mind overall --> correct: matches w/ analysis

(D) evidence that the claim that the intellectual skills required and fostered by the literary media are being lost is unwarranted --> too strong: it says probably

(E) possible evidence, mentioned and then dismissed, that might be cited by supporters of the hypothesis being criticized --> it support the conclusion, didn't support the criticism

Was confused between C and D, unfortunately chose D.
The word 'But' signifies that author is likely to go against the hypothesis stated in first sentence. However, now i realise that problem lies in that with what amount of intensity does the author disagrees - if at all - with that hypothesis.
'example' and 'evidence' are equivalent as is 'detrimental effect' and 'lost'. What differentiates C and D is then the words 'necessarily' and 'unwarranted'. This can only be identified only by understanding the conclusion(highlighted text). The clue is 'mere alteration' that goes along with 'necessarily' than with 'unwarranted' which is more straightforward in its meaning than being balanced.

Answer C.

how can we eliminate option b and c?

The author is NOT trying to conclude that "intellectual abilities are inseparable from the means by which people communicate". Maybe the author would agree with that to some extent, but it's not the point of this particular passage.

The author's conclusion is that the shift towards electronic media will merely alter the human mind, rather than cause its devolution. The example from several centuries ago is provided in support of that conclusion:

• People are complaining that electronic media have corroded the intellectual skills required and fostered by the literary media.
  
• But centuries ago, people complained about literacy itself, claiming that a shift towards literacy was corroding certain intellectual skills. Did the human mind and intellectual skills change? Sure. But the human mind didn't devolve, exactly.
  
• So, the same thing will probably happen now The human mind and intellectual skills will likely change, but that doesn't mean that the human mind will devolve. In other words, there will be change, but that change isn't necessarily negative.

Will the mind and intellectual skills change when there's a cultural change? Probably. Are those changes necessarily negative or detrimental? No.

The example from several centuries ago shows that you can have a cultural change that doesn't necessarily have a detrimental effect on the human mind overall -- and that's pretty much what choice (C) says, making it our best option.

I hope that helps!

I was stuck between C and D. Below is one complete explanation by an MANHATTANPREP expert:

This is a rather complex core structure:

Opposing Point: People complain about electronic media killing literary skills.
Premise: But people complained about literacy killing oral culture skills.
Conclusion: Electronic media results are likely a change in the mind, not devolution of the mind.

The statement we're after is clearly the premise here - but it serves as evidence for what exactly? Keep a close eye on the author's final conclusion. His point is that our brains are just going to change, rather than shrivel up and die. Who is he arguing with? People who think our brains are going to shrivel up and die.

Who thinks that? Probably the same people who are complaining about electronic media. Why do they think our brains are going to shrivel up and die? Because they say electronic media is killing literary skills.

So, we could think of those people having a core of their very own. It would look something like this:
Complainers' Premise: Electronic media is killing literary skills.
Complainers' Conclusion: Therefore, our brains are going to devolve!

The author pats them on the head and tells them not to worry. Something similar to what they are worried about happened long long ago. (It's implied that our brains did not shrivel up and die back then). So, he concludes, they probably aren't going to shrivel up and die now.

Note that the author never, ever disputes that electronic media might be killing our literary skills. His conclusion is entirely about whether our the human mind will devolve as a result. To support the claim that it won't, he points to a situation where a new skill (literacy) arguably killed off an old skill (oral culture skills), and yet our minds did not devolve. This is expressed in (C).


The Vile Temptress (D)
(D) is incredibly tempting. We know we have an opposing point, we know the author is using this statement as evidence to support his own point somehow - so this looks like water in the desert to us if we aren't careful.

But make sure your language radar is set at high scan! This answer says the statement is evidence that the claim is unwarranted. The author never actually says anything is unwarranted. mrudula_2005 is correct that the author's conclusion is soft and weak, with a 'probably', instead of a bold 'that's unwarranted!' claim.

However, that's not the only problem. The author's claim is that the unspoken opposing conclusion is probably incorrect. The author never says a thing about the idea that electronic media is killing our literary skills. That concept is really the premise of the opposing camp, and the author just disagrees with their conclusion (that our minds will devolve).


Also Not the Function
(A) The statement is evidence, for sure, but not for the claim that electronic media is killing literary skills. That's the opposition's complaint!
(B) "the means by which people communicate" is a language shift; the argument is not at all about the concept of "inseparability", nor is the conclusion a general hypothesis (rather it is a qualified prediction).
(E) This statement is not dismissed; it is also not evidence the opposition would draw on to support their argument (that our minds will devolve).