#17 - Critic: Works of modern literature cannot be tragedies

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption—SN. The correct answer choice is (D)

This critic provides several conditional statements, in the form of two very long sentences. The first
is that modern literary works cannot be tragedies like those from the past, unless their characters
are seen as having enduring nobility. In order to diagram this sentence, we can apply the Unless
Formula, which provides that the condition which follows the word “unless” is the necessary
condition, and the other condition must be negated and becomes the sufficient.

In this case, modern works cannot be tragedies like the ancient ones unless their characters are seen
as noble:

modern tragedies characters possess nobility

The contrapositive of this statement, diagrammed below, tells us that if characters cannot be seen as
possessing nobility, then there can be no modern tragedies:

characters possess nobility modern tragedies

The critic goes on to say that in this age, we know longer believe that humans are bound by fate, so it
is impossible for a modern work to be a tragedy:

believe humans bound by fate modern tragedies

Considering the two conditional statements above, we might note a “leap” from the premise to the
conclusion: If characters cannot be seen as possessing nobility, there can be no modern tragedies.
Thus, since we no longer believe that humans are bound by fate, there can be no modern tragedies.

If we notice the missing link in these conditional statements, we should not be surprised to see the
stimulus followed by an assumption question. To answer this supporter assumption question, the
correct choice will link the two “rogue elements”—the condition that “characters cannot possess
nobility”, and the condition that “humans are not seen as being bound by fate.”

Answer choice (A): The word “should” in this answer choice would reflect a value judgement, and
the author makes no such assertion in the stimulus.

Answer choice (B): This choice uses the word “false,” which is a stronger claim than the author
makes in the stimulus. The stimulus provides only that the no one takes this belief seriously, which is
not the same as claiming that the belief is absolutely false.

Answer choice (C): The author does not claim that past tragedies have been misclassified, but rather
that modern plays cannot be properly characterized as tragedies, because we no longer seriously
believe in fate, so we no longer see characters as possessing nobility.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, which links the rogue elements as required
by the question. This choice says that if one is not seen as having his or her endeavors guided by
fate, one will not be seen as possessing nobility. When this is diagrammed and combined with the
information from the stimulus, we can see that this is the needed assumption:

Premise: characters possess nobility modern tragedies

+ Assumption: believe humans bound by fate characters possess nobility
Conclusion: believe humans bound by fate characters possess nobility modern tragedies

Answer choice (E): The author actually lists such endurance as a required part of possessing nobility,
so this answer choice is not accurate.

[reop6780]

This is assumption question, and I got this right as the correct answer D was exactly what I premeditated.

Then, I wanted to make sure about "negation" I can try among answer choices.

For example, answer D has two "not" in one sentence.

When "negating," I had this urge to remove both "not." However, answer D would not attack the conclusion if I remove both "not." (-> leaving one "not" would do that)

I was thinking why I had this urge, and concluded that I was so used to negate sufficient and necessary conditions.

Here came another confusion as I looked at answer E that included conditional statement.

Should I negate BOTH sufficient and necessary condition (hence removing two "not" in a sense) ?

Additionally, answer D is conditional as well.

I was hoping an excellent instructor resolves my confusion in negating complex sentences.

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, reop,

This is a weird grammatical issue - it's easy to get caught up here. Your approach towards seeking a "not" for negation purposes is a solid one. This answer choice, like some others, makes that approach less straightforward, however.

In this case, look at the sentence. The phrase "whose endeavors were not regarded as being governed by fate" is a descriptive phrase. The sentence would grammatically flow the same way if it was "Those people will not be seen as possessing nobility." The "whose endeavors" phrase isn't grammatically necessary to the sentence, just to inform the reader which people are meant. For that reason, you wouldn't negate the "not" in the "whose endeavors" phrase, but instead would negate the other "not" which is a more active part of the sentence.

If that was a little confusing, think of it also this way: The stimulus says "In an age..." meaning that people today no longer think that human endeavors are governed by fate. This shows that you're trying to connect the "people whose endeavors are not governed by fate" portion of the argument to the "possessing nobility" portion of the argument, and so you shouldn't negate that part.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[reop6780]

Okay I understand your response.

Still, there is a simple question unanswered.

how would you negate a conditional sentence? Not just either sufficient or necessary?

For example,

If you resolve this problem, you would be promoted.

Negated version: ????????

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Hyun!

To negate a conditional sentence, you show that that necessary condition is not actually necessary. So, the negation of your example sentence would be:

• If you resolve this problem, you would not necessarily be promoted.

That negation changes the "would" into a less certain event. Alternately, the "fast and dirty" method of negating a conditional statement just drops a "not" into the necessary condition, and although that overstates the absoluteness of what is occurring, such a negation typically works just fine during the LSAT.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[reop6780]

Hi, Dave!

Thank you for helping me out

[Basia W]

Good evening,

although I got this answer right, I wanted to double check the assumption negation technique of the answer choice. In answer choice D should we simply negate the necessary condition to indicate this it does not follow? "those whose endeavours are not regarded as governed by fate WILL be seen as possessing nobility?"

thank you,

Basia

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Basia,

You are correct in your application of the Assumption Negation Technique. Essentially, I would simplify the argument as follows:

Premise: Modern literature is a tragedy Protagonists possess nobility

Premise: Modern protagonists' endeavors Not regarded as governed by fate

Conclusion: Modern literature is NOT a tragedy

For the author to conclude that modern works of literature cannot be regarded as tragedies, she must assume that its protagonists do not possess nobility. Answer choice (D) nails that one on the head: whose whose endeavors are not regarded as governed by fate will not be seen as possessing nobility. This Supporter assumption connects the two premises (which are quite disjointed on their own), making it the correct answer choice.

The logical opposite of answer choice (D) would state:

Even those whose endeavors are not regarded as governed by fate will be seen (or can be seen) as possessing nobility.

If so, it would be possible for modern works of literature to be regarded as tragedies, weakening the conclusion of the argument.

Does this make sense?

Thanks!

[Basia W]

Hello,

yes thank you for that thorough explanation. Do you have any advice for working through these sorts of convoluted SN necessary problems on test day when there aren't as many language obvious indicators?

Thank you,

Best,

Basia

[Ron Gore]

Hi Basia,

To answer your follow up question, remember that the conditional relationship is absolute. So, when you recognize that a stimulus is dealing in absolutes, have in mind that the argument may be conditional.

In this case, the first sentence of the stimulus has a clear conditional indicator word, "unless," but it also contains the word "cannot," which could tip you off. In the second sentence, you see the word "impossible," which essentially is a second iteration of "cannot." If is it impossible, it cannot be the case.

The next issue if figuring out which condition is sufficient and which is necessary. Our materials have some great conditional reasoning drills to help you accustom yourself to this task. If you haven't already done so, I recommend reviewing those drills until you've got it down. If you run into a drill you don't understand, please let us know and we'll help you through it.

Thanks!

Ron