PrepTest 156

[lcid:3723] Prep Test 156 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Translator: Dr. Abner, apparently Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Anticipate why the premises are not enough to prove that the conclusion is true.
Checking to see if a common logical fallacy is committed is very helpful.

Answer Anticipation

On an Errors in Reasoning question, we should take the time to articulate why the premise or premises aren't enough to prove that the conclusion is true. Many test-takers find this reasoning persuasive. It seems like this translator makes a good point. If we don't know precisely how the original author wanted people to respond to the ancient poem, isn't Dr. Abner's criticism — that the translation causes people to respond differently than what the original text intended — misplaced? But before we become too enamored with their reasoning, let's try to poke some holes in it. Since the translator disagrees with Dr. Abner's criticism, we should take special care to understand that criticism. And the wording of Dr. Abner's criticism is crucial. Dr. Abner didn't say that the translation doesn't produce the exact feelings that the author originally intended. In that case, the translator would definitely have a point. Instead, Dr. Abner says the translation produces feelings "other than those the original text was intended to produce." That makes the translator's argument a bit more suspect. Are we splitting hairs there? Yeah, probably. But, this is a hard question. And on hard questions, it's better to split proverbial hairs than tear out real ones. So, hear us out: to counter Dr. Abner's claim that the translation produces feelings other than those the original poem intended, the translator shouldn't bring up the feelings the author intended the poem to produce. Instead, the translator should have brought up the feelings the author didn't want the poem to produce. For instance, let's say that, from all appearances and available context, the poem is serious and sad. Now, it may be true that — as this translator points out — we don't know exactly how the author wanted people to respond on the great sadness continuum. Did the author want people to feel wistful (a little sad), melancholic (pretty sad), or despondent (super sad)? We can't say. But, we could still be fairly certain that the author didn't want people to respond by laughing. If the translation is making people feel amused to the point of laughter, Dr. Abner's criticism seems justified. Therefore, the translator overlooks that we can know how the author didn't want people to respond, even if we don't know how the author wanted people to respond. Most test-takers would have a very hard time noticing or anticipating this flaw, making this "170-breaker" a very skippable question. Even the test-takers who need to attempt this question would probably have to assess the answer choices without an anticipation. So, at the very least, we should make sure we understand Dr. Abner's criticism and the translator's response. That way, we can eliminate any answer choice that mischaracterizes either argument.

Answer choices

  1. A
    fails to adequately address Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    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.

  2. B
    draws a conclusion purely Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    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.

  3. C
    fails to adequately address Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    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.

  4. D
    rejects an argument merely Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    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.

  5. E
    concludes that we cannot Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    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.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion