Critic: Works of literature often present protagonists who

EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

Because the argument is relatively complex, it would be a good idea to concisely identify the critic's premises and conclusion:

Premise: Protagonists in literature often scorn civic duty.

Premise: Modern literature is often sympathetic towards these protagonists

Premise: Modern literature may cause lack of concern for societal good

Conclusion: Modern literature can damage individuals and society at large

Just because some readers might be unconcerned with contributing to societal good does not necessarily mean that modern literature can damage them or the society at large. What if individual or societal well-being were completely independent of any concern for societal good? You should look for a Supporter Assumption stating they aren't. This, in essence, is answer choice (B).

Answer choice (A): This answer choice is an exaggeration. Even if no individual in earlier eras was as concerned with contributing to societal good as are all modern individuals, it is still possible that modern literature may cause lack of societal concern and damage society.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The Supporter Assumption must logically connect individual well-being to the concern for societal good, and ensure that the latter leads to the former. Try the Assumption Negation technique: what if concern for societal good does not benefit any individual? Then the critic's claim regarding the negative impact of modern literature would be illogical.

Answer choice (C): Individuals' belief in the superiority of their society is irrelevant to determining the impact of modern literature upon individuals who are unconcerned about contributing to societal good.

Answer choice (D): The relative aesthetic merit of literary works is entirely irrelevant to this argument.

Answer choice (E): This may seem like an attractive answer choice at first. However, the author does not require that modern literature be less conducive to societal good than the literature of earlier eras. While this is a potential implication of the critic's argument, it is not an assumption upon which relies. This is a good example of the difference between Assumption and Must Be True questions: an assumption is a statement that precedes (or is required by) the conclusion; an inference is merely something that follows from it. This answer choice is incorrect.

Premise 1: Literature often presents Protagonists who work against the society
Premise 2: Modern Literature treats such protagonists sympathetically vs Older literature that didn't treat such characters sympathetically.
Conclusion: People whose attitude is to do good work and contribute to society ---> their attitude is harmed by such "sympathetic projection of characters" in modern literature

A. Some individuals in earlier eras were more concerned about contributing to societal good than is any modem individual. Some individuals were more concerned.... Whether people were concerned in earlier era or not does not tell us anything about how ML affects modern citizen's attitude towards doing good to society

B. It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good. If it were not advantageous i.e. Negating this statement: It is NOT to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good ---> ML doesn't play an exclusive role, and there may be other factors that contribute to this thought process not being advantageous. This must be false for the conclusion to hold. Hence B is a necessary condition required for the conclusion to be sufficient.

C. Some individuals must believe that their society is better than most before they can become concerned with benefiting it. Some (say from 1 to 100 (100 being max pop range)), believe that their society must be better...... Believing society is better or not doesn't portray how character assassination by a novel or sympathetic approach helps modify a person's attitude (in question) to do good.

D. The aesthetic merit of some literary works cannot be judged in complete independence of their moral effects. Aesthetic merit is not being judged here.

E. Modem literature is generally not as conducive to societal good as was the literature of earlier eras. Look at the word "generally". ML is generallyt not as conducive to societal good as..... meaning: it may or may not be conducive to SG ---> but in cases, where ML is conducive, what explains whether it affects the attitude or not.

OA

Conclusion- Thus, modem literature can damage individuals who appropriate this attitude, as well as damage society at large
This attitude refers to unconcerned about contributing to societal good.

Hence if we replace the pronoun then conclusion is
Thus, modem literature can damage individuals who appropriate attitude of being unconcerned about contributing to societal good, as well as damage society at large

Now we can clearly see that "It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good" is the answer.
Negation - It is to the advantage of no individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good. This breaks the conclusion.

Happened to read that replacing pronoun with the noun it refers aids to better understanding.

This is an assumption question. The passage mentions that "one should be unconcerned about contributing to societal good". "conducive" is promoting or making something possible. Hence it is not the same thing as being unconcerned. Also the negation test does not hold in this case.

conclusion: modern literature damages individual and society at large.
premise: modern literature treats protagonost sympathetically
modern literature suggest that one should be unconcerned of societal good


hence b

(A)Some individuals in earlier eras were more concerned about contributing to societal good than is any modem individual.
We cannot judge the exact numbers through novels

(B) It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good.
Yes this is the reason the anti sympsthetic sentiments are revoked i guess

(C) Some individuals must believe that their society is better than most before they can become concerned with benefiting it.
This kind of ambigious belief is not stated in the passage

(D) The aesthetic merit of some literary works cannot be judged in complete independence of their moral effects.
The outside looks and asthetics is out of scope of the argument

(E) Modem literature is generally not as conducive to societal good as was the literature of earlier
We cannot come into this conclusioin so quickly judging a few characters

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

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. - WRONG. A comparison among individuals is not as assumption that would lead us to say that ML can damage individuals and society.
(B) It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good. - CORRECT. I missed this one after seeing the word "advantage". Why it would be an advantage? Additionally, the word "some" do create confusion that may lead us to eliminate it. Why it would advantageous to some only? But that is exactly what conclusion says that when it is about damage to individuals and society.
(C) Some individuals must believe that their society is better than most before they can become concerned with benefiting it. - WRONG. Like A only this is about comparison that leads us to nowhere.
(D) The aesthetic merit of some literary works cannot be judged in complete independence of their moral effects. - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(E) Modem literature is generally not as conducive to societal good as was the literature of earlier eras. - WRONG. Trap in which i fell. Although passage specifies that the two literatures as different - word used is "distinguished", the two are elaborated as in how they are different in this choice. Negation also makes things more complex but logic is lost in that negation.

Answer B.

The argument says that because the modern literature is sympathetic towards people who are not concerned with "SOCIETAL GOOD" therefore such books are bad for readers.

(B) It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good.
Analyzing this choice : If there is no advantage in contributing to society for any one , then there is no point in being concerned with societal good. Therefore being sympathetic won't matter. Even if the books are not sympathetic, it's readers may still be unconcerned about societal good.

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.

The assumption of the whole argument lies neatly here

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.

Here itself it says that,
If one is unconcerned about contribution to social good, it will be damaging you

Pre-thinking does the trick here,
If you read the question then there is a high chance to naturally eliminating this option as it doesnt talk about the literature.
But B is the correct answer as

only if it is an advantage to social good, not being concerned with social good will be damaging you

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. Correct
(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.