Principle: One should criticize the works or actions of another person

Question

Principle: One should criticize the works or actions of another person only if the criticism will not seriously harm the person criticized and one does so in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself.

Application: Jarrett should not have criticized Ostertag’s essay in front of the class, since the defects in it were so obvious that pointing them out benefited no one.

Which one of the following, if true, justifies the above application of the principle?

(A) Jarrett knew that the defects in the essay were so obvious that pointing them out would benefit no one.

(B) Jarrett’s criticism of the essay would have been to Ostertag’s benefit only if Ostertag had been unaware of the defects in the essay at the time.

(C) Jarrett knew that the criticism might antagonize Ostertag.

(D) Jarrett hoped to gain prestige by criticizing Ostertag.

(E) Jarrett did not expect the criticism to be to Ostertag’s benefit.

PyjamaScientist · Answer

The principle states that there are two necessary conditions to be met if one should criticize the works/actions of another person:

1)  will not seriously harm the person criticized
 AND 
 2)  does so (criticizes) in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself

So, if either of these conditions is  NOT  met, then the sufficient condition (should criticize) will not be possible (should not criticize, the negated form).

Notice that the application as it is stated doesn't directly tie into the principle's necessary conditions because the principle specifically states "hope or expectation."

A is correct   because it does not allow the second necessary condition to hold. If they were so obvious that Jarrett knew that no one would benefit, then it wouldn't be possible for him to criticize "in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than himself."

And if we show that  just one of the necessary conditions doesn't hold in a conditional relationship , then by the  contrapositive the sufficient condition is not possible  (even if the other necessary condition is met).

E is not correct because it could be true, but it doesn't relate directly to the second necessary condition. Maybe Jarrett didn't expect the criticism to before Ostertag's benefit, but he thought that it would be to  someone's  benefit.

thakurarun85 · Answer

true application will satisfy both the condition.

1st condition is satisfied in application itself.

2nd condition will be satisfied by either C or E.

E makes sure that criticism will not benefit Ostentag but not sure about whether it will harm him.

C is correct.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

“Only if” introduces a necessary condition. So the principle given says

Criticize —>  seriously harm other person 
and 
  Criticize —> done in hope or expectation of benefiting another.

So there are two necessary conditions introduced by the “only.” And even if those two conditions are met, you still might not be justified in criticizing someone, because the arrows only go one way.

The application of the principle is incorrect, because it confuses “benefited” with “hope or expectation of benefiting.” In other words, how do we know that Jarrett is not just a dumbass? Maybe Jarrett is so stupid that he was capable of offering an earnest (yet obvious and worthless) criticism of Ostertag’s essay? Maybe Jarrett really did intend to help!

We’re asked to “justify,” or “make correct,” the application of the principle. If I were going to put some evidence into the record, I would want to show that Jarrett could not possibly have thought he was being helpful. Like, what if we had a witness who talked to Jarrett right before class, to whom Jarrett had said, “I know this isn’t going to benefit anyone, but I’m gonna say it anyway,” or, “I’m going to kiss ass to the teacher by criticizing Ostertag… that’s the only reason I would say anything.” If either of these is true, then Jarrett was not making his comment in order to benefit anyone other than himself, which would mean that his criticism was unjustified.

A) Yep, this is what we were looking for. If Jarrett knew he wasn’t helping anyone, then he should not have criticized Ostertag. Perfect answer.

B) Nah. Actual benefit  doesn’t matter  here. All that matters is the  intention to benefit.  This is irrelevant as to intent.

C) “Antagonism” isn’t the same thing as “serious harm,” so this is also irrelevant according to the principle.

D) This can be true without Jarrett being wrong. Maybe Jarrett did intend to gain prestige, but also intended to help someone.

E) This can be true without Jarrett being wrong, because maybe Jarrett intended to benefit someone else besides himself and Ostertag.

The best answer is A, because if it’s true it  proves  that Jarrett is wrong.

unraveled · Answer

Principle: One should criticize the works or actions of another person only  if the criticism will not seriously harm the person criticized  and  one does so in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself .

Application: Jarrett should not have criticized Ostertag’s essay in front of the class, since the defects in it were so obvious that  pointing them out benefited no one .

Which one of the following, if true, justifies the above application of the principle?

Blue text are the conditions to criticize one. However, application fulfils only one - the first one. So its kind of wrong in its application. Hence, how do we justify even though that application seems to be not right, if not wrong. We need to find a reason that keeps the highlighted text in context.

(A) Jarrett knew that the defects in the essay were so obvious that pointing them out would benefit no one.

(B) Jarrett’s criticism of the essay would have been to  Ostertag’s benefit  only if Ostertag had been unaware of the defects in the essay at the time.

(C) Jarrett knew that the criticism might  antagonize Ostertag .

(D) Jarrett hoped to  gain prestige  by criticizing Ostertag.

(E) Jarrett did not expect the criticism to be to  Ostertag’s benefit .

All but A have one or the other reason that goes either against the two conditions as laid down in principle or highlighted text in applicaiton.

Answer A.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER PREP

The principle states that one should criticize another person  only if  the criticism does not harm the person criticized  and  the critic expects to benefit someone other than himself. Since "only if" is a necessary condition indicator, both of these requirements must be met in order for the criticism to be sanctioned.

Criticize :arrow: Criticism does not harm the person criticized AND Critic expects to benefit someone other than himself

Note the distinction between fact and opinion in the two prongs of this principle: the first necessary condition is a matter of fact (no harm done); the second necessary condition is a matter of opinion (the critic  expects  to benefit someone else). To trigger the contrapositive, if  either  of these two requirements is not met, then one should not criticize the other person.

The application of the principle states that Jarrett  should not  have criticized Ostertag. The only reason given is that the defects were so obvious that pointing them out benefitted no one. This has no bearing on whether Jarrett’s criticism is warranted or not. In order to justify the conclusion, we need to show either that Ostertag was seriously harmed by the criticism, or that Jarrett did not expect his criticism to benefit anyone.

Answer choice (A):  This is the correct answer choice. If Jarrett knew that the defects were obvious and that pointing them out would benefit no one, he clearly could not have expected that his actions would benefit anyone else. By the contrapositive property of the principle stated above, Jarrett should not have criticized Ostertag’s essay.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice suggests that if Ostertag were aware of the defects in his essay, then Jarrett’s criticism would not have benefitted him. However, we cannot know whether Ostertag had any awareness of these defects. Furthermore, even if he did, it is irrelevant whether anyone  actually  benefited from Jarrett’s criticism. What matters is whether Jarred himself  believed  that anyone would benefit from the criticism. This answer choice does not provide any information about Jarrett’s beliefs.

Note that the conclusion can also be proven by evidence showing that Ostertag was seriously harmed by Jarrett’s criticism. All we know, however, is that Ostertag  did not benefit  from it. This is not enough to show that Ostertag was  seriously harmed  by Jarrett’s criticism.

Answer choice (C): Even if Jarrett knew that the criticism might antagonize Ostertag, this does not establish that the criticism would  seriously harm  Ostertag and therefore does not prove the conclusion.

Answer choice (D): The hope of gaining prestige is not the same as  believing  the criticism would benefit someone other than Jarrett. This answer is therefore irrelevant to the conclusion.

Answer choice (E): It does not matter whether Jarrett did or did not expect his criticism to benefit Ostertag. To prove the conclusion, we must know that Jarrett did not expect to benefit  anyone  other than himself. It is entirely possible that Jarrett expected his criticism to benefit other people in the class (just not Ostertag). Therefore, this answer choice does not trigger the contrapositive of the principle and fails to prove the conclusion.

temporeincidunt · Answer

Correct answer: A
Why A is right
The principle allows criticism only if the critic expects it to benefit someone other than oneself.
The application says Jarrett should not have criticized because the defects were so obvious that pointing them out benefited no one.
For this judgment to be justified, it must be true that Jarrett knew this at the time.
A directly connects Jarrett’s knowledge to the violation of the principle, making the application valid.
Why the others are wrong
B. Criticism would benefit Ostertag only if he were unaware
This explains when criticism might help, but doesn’t show Jarrett knew no one would benefit.
C. Jarrett knew the criticism might antagonize Ostertag
Possible harm alone isn’t enough; the principle is violated only if there’s no expected benefit.
D. Jarrett hoped to gain prestige
This shows a self-interested motive, but the application hinges on no one benefiting, not just selfishness.
E. Jarrett did not expect the criticism to benefit Ostertag
The principle requires benefiting anyone other than oneself, not just Ostertag.
Others (e.g., the class) could still have benefited.

Principle: One should criticize the works or actions of another person

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

Principle: One should criticize the works or actions of another person

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