Logical reasoning PrepTest 156 · Section 4 · Question 25

When an Errors in Reasoning answer choice starts with "fails to adequately address the possibility," we should ask, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

This wouldn't weaken the translator's argument. Even if the original poem had more than one author, we still may not be able to know how the authors did or didn't want people to respond to the poem. So, this information wouldn't meaningfully change the translator's argument.

This is not a flaw in the translator's argument. The translator never appeals to "popular opinion." The translator never says something like, "Most people think the poem is funny, so the author must have intended the poem to be funny." Therefore, this answer choice mischaracterizes the translator's argument.

When an Errors in Reasoning answer choice starts with "fails to adequately address the possibility," we should ask, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

This wouldn't weaken the translator's argument. In fact, if we knew the original text was not intended to produce any particular feelings, then Dr. Abner's criticism would be refuted. If the author didn't intend the original text to produce any feelings, then Dr. Abner couldn't claim that the translation produces feelings other than those the author intended. There would be no feelings the author intended! That would prove that the translator is correct about Dr. Abner's criticism being "unjustified." So, this answer choice would validate the translator's argument rather than weaken it.

This is not a flaw in the translator's argument. The translator never refers to "the circumstances" of Dr. Abner. The translator never says something like, "Dr. Abner works for the company that published a competing translation of this text, so Dr. Abner's criticism of my translation is unjustified." So, this answer choice mischaracterizes the translator's argument.

This explains how the translator's argument is flawed. The translator concludes "that we cannot know that certain effects were not what the author intended." After all, the translator concludes that Dr. Abner's criticism is unfounded. Dr. Abner says that translation produces feelings other than those the original poem intended. The translator points out that we don't know what feelings the author intended to produce. So, the translator reasons that we cannot know whether translation produces feelings other than those the original author intended.

However, the translator bases this conclusion on evidence that "we do not know what specific effects the author did intend." As the translator points out, the translator says that we can't know which feelings the author intended the poem to produce. But that's not the proper evidence the translator should bring up.

After all, the poem is serious and sad, but the translation may make people laugh hysterically. The translator shouldn't point out that we don't know specifically how the original author wanted people to respond. Even if we don't know whether the original author wanted people to feel wistful, melancholic, or despondent, we could still know that the original author didn't want people to laugh at the poem.

Instead, the translator should point out that we don't know how the original author didn't want people to laugh at the poem. If we can't say the original author was anti-laughing, then Dr. Abner's criticism would be unjustified.

So, this answer choice describes how the translator's evidence doesn't necessarily prove their conclusion. Therefore, this is the correct answer.