PT46.S3.Q15 - Critic: Works of literature often present protagonists

redshift

_Conclusion: Modern literature can damage individuals who appropriate this attitude, as well as damage society at large.

Necessary Assumption: It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to the societal good._

Can someone help with this? If we negate it, we get: It is to the advantage of no one that they be concerned with contributing to the societal good. I don't see how this destroys the conclusion. This answer choice seems to equate damage incurred with the loss of an advantage. It seems to be saying that, when negated, if I get no advantage from X, then I can't be damaged by X (and thus, the conclusion fails).

But I feel like this is kind of a logical stretch. For example, suppose I gain no advantage from taking Route A or Route B to Destination C. The loss of Route B (if a street closed down) could still damage me in the sense that, while I previously had an option, now I have none.

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-46-section-3-question-15/

BlindReviewer

I also thought this question was a bit difficult, and I think I got the answer by leaning heavily on POE. I felt weird about B because I also didn't want to equate "advantage" with "not being damaged."

But I think I can grasp a bit of your misunderstanding here, and to talk about that I'm going to add to your stimulus breakdown by clarifying referential phrases:

Conclusion: Modern literature can damage individuals who are unconcerned about contributing to societal good, as well as damage society at large.

Premise: Sympathetic treatment of characters suggests to readers that they should be unconcerned with contributing to societal good (admittedly, it's not much of a premise --- the argument isn't so strong)

Necessary Assumption: It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to the societal good.

My original instinct here was to go for a "bridging" type required assumption. I tried to look for something that would connect an attitude of being unconcerned about contributing to societal good with how this might damage individuals/society. But I found nothing, so I turned more towards POE:

a) Everything before "However" is context, and can basically be ignored. Who knows/cares about the difference between previous society and today?

c) "better than most"? The stimulus has nothing to do with this

d) "aesthetic merit?" What?

e) Similar issue with A

This then leads you to B, and that's when you realize the necessary assumption here is just a slight modification of what's in the conclusion. If individuals can be damaged by being unconcerned with contributing to societal good, then it must be true that some it's advantageous, or beneficial, to some individuals for being concerned with contributing to the societal good. Knowing what "this attitude" refers to here is crucial.

As for your misunderstanding, what caught my eye was how you phrase your reasoning as "if I get no advantage from X, then I can't be damaged by X." It's not if you or any single person gets an advantage/is damaged. The argument is about how all individuals CAN be damaged by this. And if all individuals can be damaged by doing X, then it must be advantageous for some individuals to not do X.

To use your analogy, the conclusion is basically saying "Taking road A can damage individuals." A necessary assumption would have to be, "it is to the advantage of some individuals to not take road A."

As I write this I realize I'm not 100% clear on your misunderstanding, but I hope this helps to some degree.