Query failed: connection to 172.31.3.4:9312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused). PT61.S2.Q15 - contemporary critics - 7Sage Forum

PT61.S2.Q15 - contemporary critics

wlamontwlamont Member
edited December 2015 in General 120 karma
Will someone explain to me why all the answers are wrong and why B is correct? I know it somehow links the premise and the conclusion, it's just so over my head I cannot figure it out.
Thanks in advance!!!
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-15/

Comments

  • Elle2015Elle2015 Alum Member
    198 karma
    I'll give it a shot.

    In the stimulus, a critic says the true meaning of an author's statements can only be understood through insight into that author's social circumstances. The speaker then states that the same thing can be said about the critic (i.e. the meaning of the critic's statements can only be understood through insight into her social circumstances). Then, the speaker concludes that because the critic's statements can only be understood through her social circumstances, the critic herself doesn't even know the true meaning of her own words.

    This conclusion makes sense if we assume that the critic doesn't understand her own social circumstances, which is B.

    A, C, D, and E are irrelevant and have little, if anything, to do with the argument.

  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    If you contrapose the "principle" that Smith and other contemporary critics believe, then this question is not over your head. - If there is no insight into the author's social circumstances then his/her statement cannot be understood. The conclusion says Smith's statement cannot be understood. How do we get to (/understood)? By affirming the sufficient condition that the author (Smith) does not have insight into her own social circumstances.
Sign In or Register to comment.