PT6.S3.Q21 - joel: a myth is a narrative

Seriousbird

This is a method of reasoning question. I don't understand answer choices A and C. If someone could explain those to me, I would be most appreciative!

A) Literary theory could be considered myths. What throws me off of this one is scientific explanation, couldn't it mean that the second part of J's argument "Myths are not told..because they are no longer bodies of generally accepted truths.." be considered a scientific explanation supporting his first claim? The only thing that makes me think you could eliminate this answer choice is the word problem, because he and G never indicate that there is a problem of myths only giving different explanations (one saying it is solely in the traditional world, and another saying it can also be in the modern world).
While G advances an analogous situation, this answer choice can be eliminated because it is not address the generally accepted truths aspect and acknowledges its example is not a narrative which would not be included in J's version of myth.
C) I have no idea other than J does address a distinction between traditional societies and the modern world.
D) It does not do this, regardless this is irrelevant.
E) It does call into question J's version/definition of myth by showing an example where a myth is not a narrative but still operates as a myth.

Please help! Thanks!!

Accounts Playable

Tricky question; answer E wasn't really what I anticipated, but it's the best answer.

The question asks us to describe G's response to J, so even if the "scientific explanation" describes something in J's argument, it doesn't help us answer the question. Also, I'm not convinced that simply saying that something is no longer part of longer bodies of generally accepted truths is a scientific explanation. Saying something is "scientific" sort of implies something rigorous or systematic. J doesn't say anything about that. Lastly, there is a cultural relationship to truth and science. Generally speaking, in the West, much of modern philosophy defines truth in a scientific sense (i.e. falsifiable and stuff), but truth may have different properties in non-Western philosophies (i.e. balance and stuff). What's the correct definition? I have no idea, and the LSAT does its best to shy away from controversial arguments. Most importantly, this issue doesn't present itself in our argument.

Answer C is interesting, but it's just not what G does. I think there is an implicit distinction between modern and traditional societies since the arguers add the adjective "modern" in front of the noun "society." I don't think you'd do that unless you wanted to stress that there is something other than a "modern society." But, is G's response based on an unsupported distinction? I don't think so since the distinction is at least implicitly supported.