Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 3 · Question 14

Incorrect. This answer aligns with the theorists' argument, not the main argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Some theorists: Lit critics should try to be value-neutral in their criticism, allowing readers to make their own judgments.

Lit criticism can't be value-neutral, so these theorists are wrong about criticism's goal.

Answer Anticipation:
Since the conclusion of the argument references the theorists argument—specifically, the goal they set out for literary critics—we should rephrase that conclusion to reference the specific ideas. Here, the argument states that those theorists are wrong, not that they didn't yet prove their conclusion. So the argument's conclusion could be rephrased as:

Literary critics shouldn't try to be value-neutral

Why does the author believe they shouldn't try to be value-neutral? Because criticism can't be value-neutral. However, something being impossible doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't strive for that goal—maybe aiming for the impossible will get you pretty close to the ideal, even if you can never achieve it. In order to reach this conclusion, therefore, we need to connect those ideas:
If something is impossible, then it's not an appropriate goal.

Answer Explanation:
This answer matches our anticipation. The main argument in the stimulus uses the impossibility of a goal to rule it out as a goal, and this answer choice justifies that position.

Key Takeaway:
First, when there are two viewpoints, make sure you know what the main argument is so you can eliminate answers that only address the opposing point. Second, when the conclusion is referential, rephrase it to say what it means so it's easier to track. Finally, when the main argument in a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise has a single premise and single conclusion, the correct answer will almost always say, "If {premise}, then {conclusion.}" Here that was the case—and rephrasing that conclusion helped us to more easily find the answer.

Incorrect. First, the "more likely" in this answer is too weak to support the strong conclusion. Second, it's hard to know how this impacts the argument since the critics are biased in both cases.

Incorrect. This argument deals just with elements in the opposing point, so it doesn't justify the main argument.

Incorrect. This answer is, again, about influencing readers, which factored into the theorists' argument but was out of scope for the main argument of the stimulus.