#24 - For a work to be rightly thought of as world

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Ashpine,

You are absolutely right on for answer choice (E).

Let's look at answer choice (D). The key issue with answer choice (D) is that it discusses how the work was developed, not what impact it had afterwards. From our stimulus, we only know about the influence of the work on future literature. We know absolutely nothing about the influence of prior literature on the potential work of world literature. Because we don't have information about it, it can't be the correct answer for a must be true question.

Hope that helps!

[ishigami]

Please somebody help.
I just did this question and got the wrong answer choice. After reading the explanation I still have a few questions.
1. Why is the second conditional relationship
If author from "THAT" tradition do things in one of three ways Interpreted with "A" national tradition a BICONDITIONAL relationship ?
2. why is the qualifier for the sufficient condition don't matter in this case. If author can't be from an external relation, then the sufficient condition for the second conditional will never be met so that we don't have the necessary condition right? (you can only fulfill the sufficient condition if the author is from THAT tradition)
But wouldn't that mean nothing since it doesn't mean the necessary condition won't happen?
Thank you.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi ishigami,

For the biconditional, we have both a necessary idea (that in order to be in the national tradition you need at least one of three things) and a sufficient idea (that if you meet one of the three requirements then you are also in the national tradition). Since there's both a necessary idea and a sufficient idea applying to the same term, we have a biconditional relationship.

Which conditional does your second question refer to? If it's the first conditional (World Literature Interpreted within Writer's National Tradition & Interpreted within Other National Traditions), the sufficient condition could be met. There's nothing in the stimulus to say that we can't meet the sufficient condition.

Hope that helps!

[ishigami]

Hi ishigami,

For the biconditional, we have both a necessary idea (that in order to be in the national tradition you need at least one of three things) and a sufficient idea (that if you meet one of the three requirements then you are also in the national tradition). Since there's both a necessary idea and a sufficient idea applying to the same term, we have a biconditional relationship.

Which conditional does your second question refer to? If it's the first conditional (World Literature Interpreted within Writer's National Tradition & Interpreted within Other National Traditions), the sufficient condition could be met. There's nothing in the stimulus to say that we can't meet the sufficient condition.

Hope that helps!

Hi, Rachel
Thank you for responding, I am still very confused as to why the second conditional is a Biconditional relationship
It said A work counts as being interpreted within a national tradition if authors "from that tradition" use the work in at least one of three ways. Where did you get that "in order to be in the national tradition you need at least one of three things"?
So if I am correct, it should be written down as conditional relationship like
Author "from that tradition" use the work in at least one of three ways a work counts as being interpreted within a national tradition
If I am correct, in the relationship "From that tradition" and "within a national tradition" refer to the same tradition. So if the author is only from his/her own national tradition, how can we get A work counts as being interpreted within an external national tradition when the author cannot be from an external national tradition?
(And the first conditional is that A work considered as world literature be received and interpreted within own national tradition AND be received and interpreted within external national tradition )

Thank you.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi ishigami,

I think I see where the confusion is coming in. The second conditional does not relate to the external tradition. It's only about the first prong of the first conditional--that the work must be interpreted within the writer's own national tradition. The second conditional does not relate to the "received and interpreted within external national traditions." The stimulus doesn't give us any more detail on that prong.

As for the biconditional, it tells us two things:

1---if something "counts" as interpreted within the national tradition it needs the three things.
2.---if something meets the three conditions, then it's interpreted within the national tradition.

The word "counts" is indicative of necessity and means that the three things following are necessary for the national tradition. The word "if" tells you that they are sufficient for the national tradition.

Does that clear things up at all?

[1shigami]

Hi ishigami,

I think I see where the confusion is coming in. The second conditional does not relate to the external tradition. It's only about the first prong of the first conditional--that the work must be interpreted within the writer's own national tradition. The second conditional does not relate to the "received and interpreted within external national traditions." The stimulus doesn't give us any more detail on that prong.

As for the biconditional, it tells us two things:

1---if something "counts" as interpreted within the national tradition it needs the three things.
2.---if something meets the three conditions, then it's interpreted within the national tradition.

The word "counts" is indicative of necessity and means that the three things following are necessary for the national tradition. The word "if" tells you that they are sufficient for the national tradition.

Does that clear things up at all?

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I forgot my account.
Thank you for responding.

[mab9178]

Hi,

The discussion concerning the second sentence and whether it is a uni- or bi-conditional is very insightful.

Having said that, I want to be absolutely clear about my understanding of the correct answer choice: the correct answer has nothing to do with that second sentence; correct? In other words, E is most strongly supported by the first sentence; correct?

Assuming the answer to my question above is yes, am I correct in construing "received [by X]" as "affecting the development [of X]"? I ask this latter question because I feel that E exploits the definitions of the word "received" in the context of the stimulus, specifically a "tradition" doing the receiving.

The word "received" is defined as "widely accepted as authoritative or true." Well, one would be hard pressed to deny that in the context of traditions the wide acceptance of something as authoritative or as true by a tradition has no affect/effect on the development of this tradition.

Before those words provoke a whole debate as to their accuracy and exactitude, I would caution two things. First, I am saying that by virtue of the definition of the word "received" in the context of being accepted by a tradition, this literary piece has to have "some" impact on the development; I am not saying it has to revamp it. And second, and more importantly, this is not a must be true question, it is a most strongly supported question; this distinction shores up the gap between the answer falling short from being an inference and the other answers being much further from the target or the inference than E is!

In retrospect, we can exchange the contextual definition of the word "received" with "affecting the development" in the first sentence, apply the contrapositive, and select E as the answer. Again, the question tasks us with an answer that is "most strongly supported," not one that "must be true." So any distance brought on by doubt over semantics can be resolved via the process of elimination, and the "most strongly supported" criteria.

As to the uni- versus bi-directional diagramming of the second sentence, with the utmost respect and appreciation of the frustrations that come with mastering the LSAT skills do I say that the bidirectional interpretation is the superior interpretation of the second sentence, at in least in my humble non-expert opinion. And I confess that under the gun of the clock, I totally missed the "at least" as an indicator of what is necessary being embedded within the sufficient "if."
I just proceeded to eliminate A, B, C, and D, had no idea what E is saying, although I faintly sensed it associated with the contrapositive to the first sentence but still was not sure; and remembering the PowerScore recommendation for RC (if you are certain that four are incorrect, and one you are clueless about what it means , pick the one you do not understand) so picked E and hoped for the best!

I stopped reviewing questions I get correctly, but I am glad that I went back and reviewed this one. Who knows, a subtle bidirectional relationship can come into play with the correct answer! If not, "at least" I am now alert to the broader phraseological technique!

Thank You All
Always great!
Mazen

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Mazen,

For answer choice (E), I think you actually need to use both sentences here. You do not actually need to take your interpretation of "receive" in order to get to the correct answer choice here. "Receive" does not require the work have an impact on a national tradition. I would consider "receive" to be a step before impact. For example, if a new book is published, it can be received by a national tradition even before it has any time to have an impact on the development of literature in that tradition.

The key is the function of that second sentence. The stimulus explains that the term "interpret" is actually the key term for a work to influence later works. Each of the three options in that second sentence is a way in which a work can affect the future work in a national tradition. First, it could be a direct positive model for future works. Second, it could be a negative thing to be avoided in future works. Finally, it could represent an otherness that the national tradition refines itself against.

Looking at answer choice (E), this would have to be true. For a work to be a work of world literature, it must be interpreted both by the author's own national tradition, as well as external national traditions. With the second sentence, we can see that "interpret" requires there to be an effect on the relevant national tradition.

Hope that helps!