Much of today’s literature is inferior: most of our authors are intellectually and emotionally inexperienced, and their works lack both the intricacy and the focus on the significant that characterize good literature. However, Hypatia’s latest novel is promising; it shows a maturity, complexity, and grace that far exceeds that of her earlier works.
Summary
Much of today’s literature is inferior. Most authors today are intellectually and emotionally inexperienced. Most authors’ works today lack intricacy and a focus on the significant. Good literature is characterized by intricacy and a focus on the significant. Hypatia’s most recent novel shows grace, complexity, and maturity exceeding her earlier works, and is therefore promising.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Hypatia’s most recent work contains a property of good literature to a greater degree than her earlier works.
A
Much of today’s literature focuses less on the significant than Hypatia’s latest novel focuses on the significant.
This is unsupported because the stimulus doesn’t tell us how much Hypatia’s latest novel focuses on the significant.
B
Much of today’s literature at least lacks the property of grace.
This is unsupported; while we know that much of today’s literature lacks the properties of good literature, grace is not identified as one of those properties.
C
Hypatia’s latest novel is good literature when judged by today’s standards.
This is unsupported because a focus on the significant is identified as one of the properties of good literature, and we don’t know if Hypatia’s latest novel focuses on the significant.
D
Hypatia’s latest novel is clearly better than the majority of today’s literature.
This is unsupported because we don’t know how much Hypatia’s novel focuses on the significant. We cannot conclude that the novel’s complexity alone makes it better than most literature today.
E
Hypatia’s latest novel has at least one property of good literature to a greater degree than her earlier works.
This is strongly supported because we know that Hypatia’s novel has more complexity than her earlier works. Complexity here is taken to be synonymous with intricacy, meaning her recent work has a property of good literature.
A
It presumes without giving justification that survival of the company has been a good thing.
B
It does not take into account that there are alternatives to declaring bankruptcy.
C
It presumes without giving justification that only decreased demand can ever be the cause of decreased profits.
D
It does not allow for the possibility that profits will decrease only slightly during the next fiscal year.
E
It does not take into account that there may be other ways to stop the decrease in profits.
A
infers a cause from a mere correlation
B
relies on a sample that is too narrow
C
misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain
D
mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so
E
relies on a source that is probably not well-informed
Historian: The Land Party achieved its only national victory in Banestria in 1935. It received most of its support that year in rural and semirural areas, where the bulk of Banestria’s population lived at the time. The economic woes of the years surrounding that election hit agricultural and small business interests the hardest, and the Land Party specifically targeted those groups in 1935. I conclude that the success of the Land Party that year was due to the combination of the Land Party’s specifically addressing the concerns of these groups and the depth of the economic problems people in these groups were facing.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The historian hypothesizes that the reason the Land Party won the 1935 election was because it addressed the big challenges the agricultural and small business sectors were facing. Most of the party’s support—and the country’s population—lived in rural areas, and the industries concentrated in these areas were most affected by the economic challenges of the time.
Notable Assumptions
The historian assumes causation from correlation. In other words, the historian assumes the Land Party's victory in the election wasn't due to any other factor—it must have been because of the economic challenges facing the agriculture and small business industries and the fact that the party addressed them.
A
In preceding elections the Land Party made no attempt to address the interests of economically distressed urban groups.
This does not affect the argument. Whether the Land Party appealed to urban groups facing economic challenges in previous elections is irrelevant to the fact that they sought and won rural and semirural support in 1935.
B
Voters are more likely to vote for a political party that focuses on their problems.
This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the historian’s assumption that people in the agricultural and small business sectors voted for the Land Party because it focused on their problems (as opposed to some other factor).
C
The Land Party had most of its successes when there was economic distress in the agricultural sector.
This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the historian’s assumption that the depth of the economic difficulties in the agricultural sector made people employed in this sector inclined to vote for the Land Party.
D
No other major party in Banestria specifically addressed the issues of people who lived in semirural areas in 1935.
This strengthens the argument by supporting the historian’s assumption that the Land Party’s focus on certain demographics led to its success. (D) says no other party focused on semirural areas, supporting the idea that this focus contributed to the Party’s success.
E
The greater the degree of economic distress someone is in, the more likely that person is to vote.
This strengthens the historian’s argument. It reinforces the assumption that the depth of the economic problems people were facing mobilized them to vote for the Land Party.
Stephen’s response to Zachary, if true, most strongly supports which one of the following?
This is a Most Strongly Supported question, since we’re looking for an answer that is strongly supported by Stephen’s response. MSS questions with two speakers are rare, but do pop up from time to time. We have to read Zachary’s statement first before we get to Stephen’s, in order to understand Stephen’s point.
Zachary: The term “fresco” refers to paint that has been applied to wet plaster. Once dried, a fresco indelibly preserves the paint that a painter has applied in this way.
This seems to be context telling us about fresco. It’s some kind of paint that lasts indelibly (forever).
Unfortunately, additions known to have been made by later painters have obscured the original fresco work done by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel.
We know that some painters have painted over parts of Michelangelo’s fresco painting in the Sistine Chapel. Those rapscallions! So that’s why there’s a long mushroom drawn on God’s face…
Therefore, in order to restore Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel paintings to the appearance that Michelangelo intended them to have, everything except the original fresco work must be stripped away.
This is Zach’s conclusion – if we want to get back to Michelangelo’s intended appearance for the Sistine Chapel paintings, we have to strip away everything except the original fresco work.
Does that conclusion follow from the fact that other painters have painted over parts of Michelangelo’s original fresco work?
(By the way, we should be skeptical and critical of Zach’s argument, even though this is a MSS question, because we’re asked what is most strongly supported based on Stephen’s response to Zach. Stephen is likely to criticize Zach’s argument. If we were asked instead what is most strongly supported based on Zach’s statement, then we would just accept everything Zach said as true.)
Zach’s argument doesn’t seem obviously flawed. There’s likely a problem with it, but I’ll proceed as if we can’t spot Zach’s assumptions just yet. Let’s see if Stephen’s response helps us see things more clearly.
Stephen: But it was extremely common for painters of Michelangelo’s era to add painted details to their own fresco work after the frescos had dried.
A-ha! What if Michelangelo made his own additions after the original fresco work dried? It was common for painters to do so during this time, so there’s a strong chance Michelangelo did so with the Sistine Chapel painting. And if that’s the case, then stripping away everything but the original fresco might actually go against Michelangelo’s intention. Stephen is pointing out that Zachary’s argument assumed Michelangelo didn’t intend any additions made after the original fresco work.
What’s strongly supported by Stephen’s response? I’m anticipating an answer that goes against Zach’s conclusion. Stephen’s response suggests Zach’s conclusion – that going back to the original fresco work is required to get back to Michelangelo’s intention – might be wrong.
Answer Choice (A) It is impossible to distinguish the later painted additions made to Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel paintings from the original fresco work.
This answer might be tempting if you’re thinking that our goal on this question is to weaken Zach’s argument or to strengthen Stephen’s response. After all, if it were impossible to tell what’s an addition and what’s an original, then we wouldn’t be able to strip everything but the original away.
There’s one fundamental problem with this answer, however: this isn’t a Weaken or a Strengthen question. We’re not looking to evaluate the effect of the answer, if it were true. We’re looking for an answer that is strongly supported by Stephen’s response, if his response is true.
Under that standard, (A) has no support. We have no idea whether it’s “impossible” to distinguish the additions from the original. Maybe some of the additions are clearly newer than the original? Stephen’s response merely suggests that Michelangelo made some additions to his original work. But that doesn’t mean we don’t know what’s new and what’s original.
If we take Zach’s claims to be true, then (A) is anti-supported. His claims imply that it is possible to distinguish the original from the later add-ons.
Correct Answer Choice (B) Stripping away everything except Michelangelo’s original fresco work from the Sistine Chapel paintings would be unlikely to restore them to the appearance Michelangelo intended them to have.
This is most strongly supported by Stephen’s response, because if it was “extremely common” for painters in Michelangelo’s time to paint over their original, then there’s a strong chance Michelangelo intended some additions that covered the original. In that case, stripping everything away except the original wouldn’t be what Michelangelo intended.
I would like this answer more if it used a word or phrase weaker than “unlikely,” such as “might not” or “would not necessarily.” But “unlikely” is supportable here given that painting over the original was “extremely common” in Michelangelo’s time period. If we did not know that this practice was very common, then I’d be careful about picking this answer choice, since “unlikely” would seem too strong.
Answer Choice (C) The painted details that painters of Michelangelo’s era added to their own fresco work were not an integral part of the completed paintings’ overall design.
Stephen’s response doesn’t suggest anything about whether the additions that the original painters made to the original work fit into the works’ overall design. Maybe the additions fit well, because the original painters realized that the original work was missing something. Maybe the overall design of the Sistine Chapel required Michelangelo’s later additions. We just don’t know from Stephen’s response.
Answer Choice (D) None of the painters of Michelangelo’s era who made additions to the Sistine Chapel paintings was an important artist in his or her own right.
We don’t know anything about the painters’ importance from Stephen’s response. Don’t assume that people who made additions to a famous painter’s work can’t themselves be famous.
Answer Choice (E) Michelangelo was rarely satisfied with the appearance of his finished works.
Stephen’s response doesn’t suggest anything about how frequently Michelangelo was satisfied with his finished works. First, even if Michelangelo added things to his originals, that doesn’t mean he was unsatisfied with the original – maybe he liked the originals, but just wanted to make them even better? Second, the “finished work” might include both the original and the additions – maybe he was satisfied with the work after making the additions?