Q20

[tommywallach]

20. (E)
Question Type: Synthesis (10-15, 30-34, 42-44)

Very rarely will the main point be stated explicitly in any one given place in the passage.
Questions that ask about the main point of the passage require us to synthesize multiple parts of the passage in order to come away with a broader overall interpretation. Answer choice (E) does this effectively. Notice that (E) also matches up nicely with the different bullet points on each side of our scale.

(A) says that Dostoyevsky drew on elements from both strains of criticism, but the primary point of the passage is to describe the ways in which he differentiated himself from those strains, not the ways in which he was similar. Also, it’s never directly said that he developed a "new" direction for Russian literature.

(B) is directly contradicted by line 10: "as a realist, he never doubted that reality was literature’s crucial source."

(C) is true, but too narrow. Dostoyevsky objected to the radical critics’ assertion that literature be useful, but he also objected to their definition of reality, and their dismissal of formal artistry.

(D) is reasonable, but again, too narrow. The passage talks about Dostoyevsky’s numerous problems with the radical critics, not just their narrow interpretation of "reality."

[schafferadamj]

(E) feels really incomplete to me; granted the majority of the passage is distinguishing Dostoyevsky from the radicals, but why is OK that there is no mention that this is really a "third position", and he also was separate from the "art stands high" crowd?

[tommywallach]

Hey Schaffer,

I would just remember you're seeking the best answer, not a perfect answer. If you can find a better answer choice, that's worth discussing, but if the problem is simply that the correct answer feels incomplete...well, all that matters is that it's less incomplete than the other answers.

-t

[JorieB701]

(E) feels really incomplete to me; granted the majority of the passage is distinguishing Dostoyevsky from the radicals, but why is OK that there is no mention that this is really a "third position", and he also was separate from the "art stands high" crowd?

Hmm.. I don't really think the above response answered the question that was being asked here. So, I'm not an LSAT geek but I'll attempt to help in case others had similar concerns.

I actually got this one wrong. It was the end of a section and I didn't love E so certain stress impulses took over and I talked myself into something else with even more issues. lol.

But looking at the passage now.. the whole introduction presenting "significant and opposing directions in Russian literary criticism" seems more like background used to introduce the topic. Sure, he contrasts Dostoyevsky's views with the first position (high and above) ina kind of ad hoc way, but the passage does seem devoted solely to making a distinction between his views and that of the radical critics. It's frustrating looking back on these passages without the ticking of the clock in the background because in hindsight, it always seems so obvious. Here, each paragraph following the first, even begins by introducing a viewpoint of the radical critic that Dostoyevsky took issue with, and the rest of the paragraph explains why.

I think the important thing is to try and start recognizing patterns like this. The LSAT test writers for sure do this on purpose.. question 24 in this section is a perfect indicator that they were purposely preying on the testers whom, like us, let the introduction marry us too early to a certain structure we're used to seeing at this point (here's two viewpoints at odds with each other, then here's this other viewpoint we're going to use to compare and contrast with each of them, then maybe we'll come down on one side over the other). I also don't think it's a coincidence that earlier in this section there's a passage that did exactly that. Also, get ready for the Manhattan instructor to bust in at some point with the whole, "This is a perfect place where the scale would have helped you!!!" reminder.

If the LSAT test writers were kinder (which they're generally not), they would have included a question that asked what the purpose of mentioning the high and above viewpoint was. I think even a few brief moments of reflection and a revisit to the passage would have highlighted that it was less about how Dostoyevsky didn't agree with their viewpoint and more a way of presenting what the prevailing debate was about at that time (although, in all fairness they did include question 24 which could have helped). Should the literature of the time be about the real world, should it exist to help people and address the important issues of the day? Or should it be above all that? Dostoyevsky: Definitely based in reality, but with certain qualifications.