- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:09 pm
#27134
Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=11395)
The correct answer choice is (E)
The justification for the correct answer can be found on:
(lines 18-25)
In the passage, the author notes that even when Mphahlele received a favorable review, there was often a negative subtext. In other words, even when they were complimentary, the critics often found a way to slip in some negative criticism. In this context, one critic of The Wanderers stated that if anger, firsthand experiences, compassion, and topicality were the sole requirements for great literature, The Wanderers would be one of the masterpieces of this part of the twentieth century—backhanded praise indeed.
Answer choice (A): It is true that Mphahlele has little interest in establishing such guidelines, but these are not the critic’s words, nor do they reflect the critic’s belief. This is a common LSAT ploy—to take an otherwise accurate assertion from the passage and misattribute it, rendering it incorrect.
Answer choice (B): The negative subtext referred to is a negative comment couched in the form of a positive review, which is quite different from a comment that is “one-sided.”
Answer choice (C): The critic never states what the requirements for fiction are, nor are there any references to the belief that firsthand experiences are in direct contradiction to those requirements.
Answer choice (D): The critic’s comments were presented as hypothetical: “if these factors were the sole requirements for great literature, this would be a masterpiece.” Since the critic never makes the claim that these are the actual, ill-conceived sole requirements, this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Since the critic’s comment is framed as a hypothetical (in the conditional tense), the critic’s implication is that anger, firsthand experiences, compassion and topicality must not be the sole requirements for great literature, and Mphahlele’s work should not be characterized as such. The critic’s assertion is that if this were all that was required to be great literature, The Wanderers would be great literature.
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=11395)
The correct answer choice is (E)
The justification for the correct answer can be found on:
(lines 18-25)
In the passage, the author notes that even when Mphahlele received a favorable review, there was often a negative subtext. In other words, even when they were complimentary, the critics often found a way to slip in some negative criticism. In this context, one critic of The Wanderers stated that if anger, firsthand experiences, compassion, and topicality were the sole requirements for great literature, The Wanderers would be one of the masterpieces of this part of the twentieth century—backhanded praise indeed.
Answer choice (A): It is true that Mphahlele has little interest in establishing such guidelines, but these are not the critic’s words, nor do they reflect the critic’s belief. This is a common LSAT ploy—to take an otherwise accurate assertion from the passage and misattribute it, rendering it incorrect.
Answer choice (B): The negative subtext referred to is a negative comment couched in the form of a positive review, which is quite different from a comment that is “one-sided.”
Answer choice (C): The critic never states what the requirements for fiction are, nor are there any references to the belief that firsthand experiences are in direct contradiction to those requirements.
Answer choice (D): The critic’s comments were presented as hypothetical: “if these factors were the sole requirements for great literature, this would be a masterpiece.” Since the critic never makes the claim that these are the actual, ill-conceived sole requirements, this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Since the critic’s comment is framed as a hypothetical (in the conditional tense), the critic’s implication is that anger, firsthand experiences, compassion and topicality must not be the sole requirements for great literature, and Mphahlele’s work should not be characterized as such. The critic’s assertion is that if this were all that was required to be great literature, The Wanderers would be great literature.