- Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:57 pm
No worries, bk, we're here to help!
The assumption here needs to close the logical gap between being a great novelist and getting that "intuitive grasp" the author speaks about. If he's going to argue that a novelist cannot be great if he doesn't get that intuitive grasp, then he must be assuming that the grasp is necessary, indispensable, for that greatness. That's where answer D comes in; it makes that grasp necessary in a conditional relationship in which being a great novelist is sufficient.
The problem with answer E is that it makes no such connection. There is no mention of greatness or of novelists. Without that link, this answer does nothing for us and isn't required by the argument.
Answer E is also something of a shell game, mixing up aspects of the stimulus in ways that they weren't originally expressed. "Observing and analyzing life" isn't quite what the stimulus is talking about, is it?
Look for the links that fill the logical gaps. This approach works well with assumption, justify, and strengthen questions frequently, and you'll be stepping up your gsme by spotting them and giving them your attention and consideration.
Keep at it!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam