PrepTest 130

Incorrect. The argument relies on how audiences view the protagonists ("are seen as") as determining whether a work is a tragedy, so this answer contradicts the stimulus.

Incorrect. The argument relies on this belief to justify its conclusion, so treating it as false isn't required by the argument.

Incorrect. Classification is out of scope since the argument is about whether works are or are not tragedies, not whether they're considered tragedies.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
not Protagonists possess enduring nobility → not Classic tragedy
Humans today don't believe their lives are ruled by fate
Therefore: not Modern lit is a classic tragedy

Answer Anticipation:
The first statement lays out a conditional rule that guarantees a work isn't a classic tragedy. Namely, if the protagonists aren't seen as possessing enduring nobility, then the work can't be a classic tragedy. The argument then applies that rule to reach a conclusion that a class of literature (modern literature) can't be works of classic tragedy—a conclusion that can be justified by the conditional!

In order to justify that conclusion, however, the argument would need to establish that the protagonists of modern literature must be viewed as possessing enduring nobility. The premise doesn't establish that, instead talking about how modern humans don't view their lives as being guided by fate. Since the argument relies on the application of the conditional, the assumption this argument is making is believing that the premise offered triggers the conditional, so the correct answer should connect the actual premise to the sufficient condition:

If one believes that lives aren't guided by fate, then protagonists won't be viewed as possessing enduring nobility.

Let's find an answer stating this (or something similar) in the answers.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the ideas that we anticipated needed to be connected, allowing the premise of the argument to trigger the conditional. Modern society doesn't regard lives as governed by fate. If this prevents people from being seen as possessing nobility, then this guarantees this literature will not have protagonists viewed as possessing nobility and thus they can't be tragedies. If, on the other hand, protagonists can be seen as possessing nobility even if their lives aren't governed by fate, then modern works can be classic tragedies.

Key Takeaway:
Conditional logic in a flawed argument will usually feature an illegal reversal or negation. When that doesn't happen, it frequently features a term shift between something in the premises and a new term in the conclusion. A rarer—but still repeated—flaw in a conditional logic-based question is when a conditional is applied after establishing a premise that doesn't quite trigger the sufficient condition. This is still a term shift, just not between the premises and the conclusion. Whenever an argument on the LSAT is applying a conditional, make sure that it successfully triggers the sufficient condition. If it doesn't, the correct answer likely will guarantee that the conditional applies to the situation by connecting it to that condition.

Incorrect. The stimulus specifically notes that the protagonists must be seen as possessing nobility, so this answer about ignoble characters determining whether a work is a tragedy misses the mark by not identifying that character as the protagonist.