Logical reasoning PrepTest 113 · Section 2 · Question 15

Incorrect. First, the stimulus states that there are a "number of equally valid" interpretations, but there may also be a number of invalid interpretations, and there could be criteria to distinguish between the two. Additionally, the validity of the interpretations is out of scope of the conclusion—the conclusion cares only about if those interpretations (valid or not) tells us something about the person doing the interpreting.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Interpreting text imposes a meaning on it instead of finding what the author meant, so it says more about the critic than the author.

Answer Anticipation:
These more abstract arguments can be tricky to follow, but we should focus on a common trend in Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions—new concepts that show up only in the conclusion.

Here, we have one—learning more about the critic than the writer. There's no premise that talks about what we can tell about the critic.

What does the Literary Critic talk about in her premises that's related to this idea? Mainly, that interpreting a literary text imposes meaning on it rather than discovering what the author meant. It's never established, though, that seeing the meaning that someone imposes on a text tells us something about that person—it may just be random, or it may tell us more about the person who taught them about that text!

Since this is the jump in the argument, we should look for an answer that establishes it—that we can learn about someone who interprets a text from that interpretation.

Answer Explanation:
This answer states the assumption we found in the argument. If meaning imposed on a literary work doesn't reflect facts about the interpreter, then it can't tell us anything about the critic, and thus it can't tell us more about the critic than the writer. This answer is required for the argument's conclusion to hold, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
For the more abstract/philosophical Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions, start with the conclusion and identify any new concepts that show up there. Then, see what concept is most closely related to it in the premises, and look for an answer that connects those concepts. Don't try to understand all the abstract philosophy/language!

Also, remember that the conclusion determines the scope of the argument. Here, there was a discussion of the validity of interpretations in the stimulus, but that didn't affect the conclusion, which was about whether interpretations tell us anything about the person making them. Those interpretations could be valid or invalid, and we could still learn something about the people making them. By clearly defining the scope of the argument through the conclusion, we could eliminate answers that discussed the validity of interpretations, which drastically sped up our ability to make eliminations.

Incorrect. The stimulus notes that interpretations all primarily involve imposing meaning, not necessarily considering the writer's intention. This would include valid interpretations, so this answer is contradicted by the stimulus.

Incorrect. Since the argument cares about what the interpretation says about the critic, it doesn't matter whether the critic can know the true intentions of the writer. This is especially true since the Literary Critic notes that interpretations "need not" think about the writer's intentions.

Incorrect. Deep or shallow, what matters is if the interpretation tells us something about the person making it, not the author, so this answer is out of scope.