Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 3 · Question 15

Incorrect. The argument doesn't require no modern individual to be able to compete with people from earlier eras on the societal engagement front. As long as modern literature has a negative impact on some modern readers, the conclusion can hold, even if everyone else is even more civically engaged than ever before.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Books of all eras - Often present people who are outsiders
Modern lit (vs. older lit) - More frequently treats them as heroes
Message to readers - It's cool to ignore the good of society
Conclusion - Modern lit can damage people and society

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus presents a difference between modern literature and older literature—it more frequently has anti-heroes that are presented sympathetically. This then has an effect—readers might think that you should adopt that attitude and not care about contributing to society. From this, the argument concludes that modern literature can damage individuals and society.

So, to shorten the argument, modern literature can cause people to be unconcerned with the societal good, so modern literature can hurt people and society.

That jumps between two different effects, and so the argument is assuming that the one in the premise guarantees the one in the conclusion. This argument is therefore assuming that individuals being unconcerned with the societal good can hurt individuals and society.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the effect of modern literature established in the premises to the effect in the conclusion. If no one is benefited by being concerned with contributing to societal good, then modern literature, in making people unconcerned about doing so, can't damage individuals, and thus the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
One way to approach errors in reasoning is to see where the conclusion and premises overlap, and where they don't. Here, both talked about an effect of modern literature, but those effects were different. That led us to anticipate an answer connecting the two effects.

Incorrect. How people view the "goodness" of their society compared to others is out of scope of the argument. This answer establishes a necessary condition for caring, but the argument is only concerned with whether modern literature can have a certain effect by presenting antiheroes.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of aesthetic merit in the argument, nor is that inherently related to any of the concepts mentioned there, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument brings up one way that modern literature can be harmful to society that is more prevalent than earlier literature, but this doesn't require there to be no other ways in which that's not the case. Modern lit might hurt society more than earlier lit through its antiheroes, while earlier lit might hurt society more than modern lit through its depiction of old, outdated, and offensive social structures.