Q3 - Finnish author Jaakko Mikkeli was

[jrany12]

Hi,
Could you please explain why C is the correct answer and the others aren't? The wording of the answer is just weird to me! Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The conclusion of Mikkeli's defense is that plagiarism was impossible. The evidence in support of this conclusion is that Mikkeli does not understand Norwegian, Halden's book was only published in Norwegian, and no reviews of Halden's book have ever been published.

Now just because Mikkeli doesn't understand Norwegian, that doesn't establish that Mikkeli wasn't familiar with Halden's book.

This is a necessary assumption question. The best way to approach this is to think of what would undermine the argument, and then find an answer choice that rules that out. So, for example, it would weaken the argument if someone had conveyed the information in Halden's book to Mikkeli. Answer choice (C) rules that possibility out and therefore is necessary to the argument. If answer choice (C) were not true, one could not establish for certain whether Mikkeli had plagiarized the work or not.

(A) is irrelevant. Meeting Halden is not necessary to plagiarizing his work.
(B) is irrelevant. The popularity of the work is not important in knowing whether the work was plagiarized.
(D) supports the conclusion that there was not plagiarism, but is not required in order for plagiarism to be ruled out.
(E) is irrelevant. Understanding a related language would not change the fact that Mikkeli still cannot understand Norwegian.

Does that answer your question?

[jrany12]

Yes it does! Thanks for the clear explanation!
For some reason, I misunderstood C as saying that nobody related Halden's book to Mikkeli, as in establish some sort of relationship between the two....instead, "related" here means informed Mikkeli of.

[uhdang]

Hello,

Just have a question regarding D).
Would you say this is a Sufficient Assumption?
I feel like this is not REQUIRED, but assuming this would support the conclusion, so it could be a sufficient assumption, but i'm not 100% sure.

Thank you.

[JosephV]

Hello,

Just have a question regarding D).
Would you say this is a Sufficient Assumption?
I feel like this is not REQUIRED, but assuming this would support the conclusion, so it could be a sufficient assumption, but i'm not 100% sure.

Thank you.

You are right about (D) not being required (after all, the correct answer is (C)).

I share your thoughts that (D) could express a sufficient condition to resolve the apparent paradox in the stimulus. The only thing, though, that bothers me a bit about (D) is the word "subconsciously." Why does it have to be subconscious? They could just as well know the myth and actively construct their stories upon its plot.

Regardless I, too, think (D) could be a sufficient assumption.

EDIT: I think I answered my own question a minute after I posted it. Who cares whether they needed to have done the myth referencing subconsciously. With sufficient assumptions it does not matter that something may not be necessary, as long as it ensures the outcome. Hence, (D) could have said " Both MIkkeli and Halden were visited by the same fairy who told them to write about the same thing." Does it have to be the case? No! But it would work to settle/resolve the argument.

[obobob]

Hi is there any other reason why (E) cannot be the correct answer?
I chose (E) when I was solving this question as I thought maybe understanding earlier language form can provide Mikkeli some kind of understanding about the Norwegian author’s, Halden’s, book (so opens up some kind of possibility to be able to plagiarize).

As I reviewed this question and read the explanation provided above, I see that it’s too much of a stretch to think what I originally thought ( and, also that Mikkeli knowing some kind information from Halden’s book can still be used to plagiarize Halden’s idea).

Besides (E) being irrelevant to the argument, does the fact that Old Icelandic language is an extinct language also partially contribute to why this answer choice is wrong?

[smiller]

Besides (E) being irrelevant to the argument, does the fact that Old Icelandic language is an extinct language also partially contribute to why this answer choice is wrong?

The phrases "familiar with," "related to" and "earlier form" seem to create bigger problems for (E).

Suppose Mikkeli actually is "familiar with" Old Icelandic. That might simply mean that he knows it existed, and maybe knows a few facts about it. "Familiar with" doesn't mean he can read, speak, or understand it.

But even if he can read Old Icelandic, does that somehow help him understand the plot of a book written in Norwegian? German is "related to" English, but being fluent in one doesn't allow someone to understand the other. Furthermore, "earlier forms" of languages sometimes bear little resemblance to modern forms. The "earlier form" of Norwegian might be very different from the one in Halden's book, just like Old English is very different from modern English.

So, it's not necessary to assume anything about Mikkeli's familiarity with Old Icelandic. His familiarity or lack of familiarity has no bearing on the argument.