Q14 - Drama critic: There were many interesting

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument concludes that no plays written last year will be popular several centuries from now. Why? Because no plays written last year examine human nature in a skillful way. Furthermore, if a play does not examine human nature skillfully, it will not be performed several centuries from now.

The gap in the argument is that in order to be performed several centuries from now, a play must be popular. Nicely expressed in answer choice (A).

Incorrect Answers
(B) is out of scope. High critical acclaim plays no role in the argument.
(C) is out of scope. The reasoning does not address which plays the critic has seen.
(D) is out of scope. High critical acclaim plays no role in the argument.
(E) negates the logic of a premise that would justify the argument's reasoning, which is what makes it so tempting,

#officialexplanation

[jennifertrimo]

I understand why (A) is the answer but I had a hard time eliminating (C), isn't also an assumption the argument relies on?

[jedtifft]

I chose C over A first time through. Upon reviewing, C, even if true isn't a necessary assumption as it doesn't survive the negation test. If there were plays that the critic had neither read or seen, they still could have not skillfully explored human nature, thus not able to become popular over the centuries.

My question is whether C could be correct if it were worded as "There are plays written last year that skillfully explored human nature, of which the drama critic was unaware."

[estellaW580]

I understand why (A) is the answer but I had a hard time eliminating (C), isn't also an assumption the argument relies on?

Not really, if you negate C it would be there were plays written last year that the critic was not aware of. That being said , what does this do?

The plays that the critic didn't know about are still of two types : either they explore human nature skillfully, or they don't.
But WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT DOES OR NOT explore human nature skillfully.

So Negation of C would not destroy the argument.
This is another LSAT trap, where the missing link is very hard to detect because of the convoluted word play, and your mind immediately jump to oh.. what if he doesnt know all the plays, that would only weaken his argument, by a great lot, but not completely destroy it. This is a weaken vs destroy trap.

[BarbC178]

I chose A because it was pretty close to my prediction.

However, I paused because the answer bridged the gap in a way that felt like a sufficient assumption and not a necessary one.

Is it because the stimulus and AC phrase things in the negative that this is a necessary and not a sufficient assumption?

Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

I chose A because it was pretty close to my prediction.

However, I paused because the answer bridged the gap in a way that felt like a sufficient assumption and not a necessary one.

Is it because the stimulus and AC phrase things in the negative that this is a necessary and not a sufficient assumption?

Thanks!

It's not because it's framed in the negative. A stimulus and/or answer choice could be phrased positively or negatively for either type of question.

(A) looks like an answer that is both necessary and sufficient, which happens sometimes. To make things easier, use the negation test rather than trying to eliminate sufficient assumptions. If the negated answer destroys the argument, it's necessary.

Hope this helps.