ilikebaseball wrote:im gonna be on here for the next few hours gaiz sry for my incessant bitching but could someone please diagram #21 S3 PT72 that'd be awesome. Been lookin at it forever and cant get it its prolly obvious and im gonna feel dumb after
1. For readers to be able to enter the world of a novelist’s mind, they must be able to experience that world from the moral perspective of the novel’s characters.
2. In contemporary novels, some characters commit atrocities against others that are spectacles which serve only to make readers wonder what will happen next, rather than events whose purpose is to be seen as the injustices they are.
3. Therefore, there is little of social significance in contemporary novels.
The question is what would help the proponent of the argument draw the desired conclusion.
(A) has no bearing on the issue
(B) While true, this has no bearing on the matter: the argument is not concerned with whether readers can empathize with the victims of injustice in contemporary novels
(C) This has the right logical form (n that it specifies a necessary condition for social significance), but the argument’s premises don’t establish that contemporary novels fail to engage the moral sensibilities of their audience
(D) Specifies a sufficient condition for social significance (if …, then it will be socially significant), but in order to conclude that contemporary novels have no social significance, the argument needs to establish that they fail to meet a necessary condition
(E) Specifies a condition that is both necessary and sufficient for social significance (‘only to the extent that…’, meaning that their social significance consists in, and derives from, their enabling a reader to enter the novelist’s mind), and, when coupled with (1) and (2), allows you to infer (3)