Two randomly selected groups of 30 adults each were asked to write short stories on a particular topic. One group was...
Jvsquaq1January 12, 2024
Answer B
Option B says: "People writing to win prizes show a greater than usual tendency to produce stereotypical stories that show little creativity."
Just because something isnt original doesnt mean that its not good, the story of Aladdin has been told for centuries with little to know creativity, since its just been recycled for hundreds of years. And I personally loved the Disney Aladdin. Just because something has been retold like a dozen time, Like modern day marvel movies that Hollywood basically just recycles and rebrands each time, but many people think they are great too, obviously if they keep making them someone is going to go watch them.
Furthermore no matter how hard you try there are only about 10 or so story archetypes at best. Every story is basically a retelling of an older story. If you give me a modern day tv show I can probably put it into one of those 10 or so archetypes within minutes of watching an episode. I can practically guarantee you that every story is a re-iteration of a different on in the past with slightly different details. It doesnt mean the story isnt good
Further those cash prizes could be like a single dollar, who cares, why would anyone try if it was a single dollar. Me personally if I was in that group and the prize was a dollar I'd just write the shortest story possible like 3-4 sentences and then go on my phone, why would anyone put time into something if the reward wither intrinsic or extrinsic doesnt excite the person
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I completely disagree with you about creativity- I think you're confusing creativity with originality. To argue that a great retelling isn't creative would be a complete misunderstanding of creativity. The visuals, dialogue, and unique spin that Disney's Aladdin has on a millennium old story are an element of creativity.
While I don't think I've ever seen Aladdin, there are plenty of great creative works that are not original in any sense. The 1994 Romeo and Juliet, any story based on the heroes journey, or any interpretation of an existing rough work can still be creative. Homer retold existing stories, are you calling him uncreative?
More importantly- this is irrelevant. The lsat doesn't test literary analysis. All things being equal, creativity is clearly a net positive. Holding all other elements constant a creative story will likely be better than an uncreative one. There's a reason the discipline of fiction writing is generally called creative writing. B is correct because it suggests a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon. Creativity is just one possible pathway- it could also be the case that knowing one is competing makes one's dialogue unrealistic, or characters unrelatable. These would also like be right answers, because they give us reasons why the study result would have occurred.
You're correct that creative and good are not the same. However, creativity is a major element of a good story, and it is reasonable to think that a creative story is likely to be better than an uncreative one.
Finally, the study seems to show the the participants' behavior was altered by the cash prize. While we don't know the amount, the fact that they were competing appears to have influenced the participants to write stories that were rated lower. More importantly, the amount of the prize would not help us to understand why the prize group scored lower.
