Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 4 · Question 21

Incorrect. The stimulus never discusses forms of expression that have "previously served" a given purpose, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The Critic discusses viewing transgressions as injustices, but she doesn't mention empathizing with victims. That, combined with the lack of a connection to the conclusion, is enough to rule this answer out.

Incorrect. This answer deals with social significance, so we need to dive in deeper. To diagram it out, we get: Socially significant → Engages moral sensibilities of audience. Or, to get it to line up with the conclusion of the argument, we can take its contrapositive: ~Engages moral sensibilities of audience → ~Socially significant. This answer would be correct if the stimulus establishes that contemporary novels don't engage the moral sensibilities of the audience. And it can seem as if it does! But be careful—the stimulus establishes that the transgression in the novels don't have the purpose of getting readers to see those actions as unjust, and that readers can't experience the world from the characters' moral perspective. They could still be morally engaged in spite of the purpose of the events, and by viewing the internal world of the novel through their own moral perspective.

Incorrect. According to the critic, these novels don't let the readers experience injustice from the victims' point of view, so this answer doesn't apply. Additionally, it concludes that modern novels aren't socially significant, whereas this answer can justify a conclusion that something is socially significant. This answer is an illegal negation of what we're looking for.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
not Experience world through morality of characters → not Readers enter novelist's mind
Characters act badly simply to get reader to wonder what will happen next, not to highlight the acts as bad
Therefore: Modern novels aren't socially significant

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion of this argument brings up a wholly new concept—social significance. There's no discussion of social significance in the premises—just a discussion of action, plot, morality, and the novelist's mind. In order for this argument to work, then, something from the premises must be connected to the idea of social significance.

Looking through the premises, they do build together. The characters are said to act in a way that makes readers wonder, "What's next?" instead of thinking about injustice. That's close to the sufficient condition of the conditional—not experiencing the world through the morality of the characters. If you're focused on plot and not justice, then you're not experiencing the world of the novel through a moral lens. So the premises build to the conclusion that modern novels don't let readers enter the novelist's mind.

However, that's a large jump from not entering the mind of the novelist to not being socially significant! The correct answer, therefore, should draw that connection.

Answer Explanation:
Socially significant → Allow readers to enter the internal world of the novelist's mind. Or: not Readers enter novelist's mind → not Socially significant. This answer allows a conclusion that something isn't socially significant to be drawn, based on that novel not allowing readers to enter the novelist's mind. Since the stimulus establishes that modern novels don't let the reader enter the novelist's mind, this principle justifies the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument is building ideas off of each other, try to identify where there's overlap—even if that overlap uses different language. While you may not end up diagramming out the entire stimulus, noting that the argument has a flow to it from one idea to another can help you make sense of its structure and, therefore, where the gaps are.