LSATMax and COVID-19:
Amid these difficult times, we're lowering the price on all courses.
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
December 2013 LSAT
Some theorists argue that literary critics should strive to be value-neutral in their literary criticism. These theor...
on November 26, 2018
on November 30, 2018
Iâ€™m happy to help. As always, letâ€™s start with the question stem. We are looking for an answer that will allow the argumentâ€™s conclusion if we assume that answer.
In order to find that, we need to understand the argument. Premise: some theorists say: strive to be valueâ€”neutral. But literary criticism cannot be completely value-neutral. Therefore, some theorists are wrong about an appropriate goal.
Do you see the gap? See how we have a statement about â€œstrivingâ€ vs. a statement about being unable to be â€œcompletelyâ€ value neutral? Surely there is some distance between those two options that could impact the conclusion that one should not even try to â€œstriveâ€ to be value neutral?
And that is what answer B offers â€” it closes that gap. It tells us that if it is possible to be completely value neutral, then critics shouldnâ€™t even try.
I hope that helps! Please let us know if you have further questions.
on August 6 at 12:31AM
I am still confuse. Can you explain it in a different way?
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.