PT 27, RC #24 - LSAC wrong on this one? Forum

[ComatoseClown]

Of course they can't be wrong, but I've honestly never been so stumped in understanding the correct answer to a RC question.

Line 24 in the passage - "Freud: ...in those stories (referring to fairy tales) everything is possible, so nothing is incredible..."

How then can the correct answer NOT be choice B? I disagree completely with the correct answer choice C, because Freud did not imply fairy tales are "so fantastic." The passages states that he thought fairy tales were not incredible, which clearly makes it safe to say he wouldn't consider them as "so fantastic."

[fosterp]

I think your stuck too hard on the meaning of fantastic. Whether he thought fairy tails were in fact fantastic is besides the point. The point was that everything in fairy tails was so "out there" (use whatever word you want) that nothing would seem too crazy.

B cannot be deduced because there is a jump in logic there. Nothing implies that "everything" is "purely" imaginary. The language is far too strong. The passage indicates that some things are imaginary but you can't say all of it is.

This question would be a good case where you want to cross off wrong answers to get the right one. While you might not agree with the wording of the answer, it definitely fits more strongly than the other ones because a case can be made against each one why it is wrong.

[ComatoseClown]

Thanks for your explanation, but can you tell me why the phrase "so fantastic" would not also constitute the same jump in logic? I don't understand how it would, because I think "so fantastic" sounds as strong of language as does "purely imaginary" doesn't it to you?

Likewise, we know that in line 24 Freud is quoted as saying "...in those stories everything is possible, so nothing is incredible." In that statement, given his words "everything" and "nothing," how can we confidently rule out answer choice B which has, as its primary 'function-word', "everything"?

[fosterp]

Thanks for your explanation, but can you tell me why the phrase "so fantastic" would not also constitute the same jump in logic? I don't understand how it would, because I think "so fantastic" sounds as strong of language as does "purely imaginary" doesn't it to you?

Likewise, we know that in line 24 Freud is quoted as saying "...in those stories everything is possible, so nothing is incredible." In that statement, given his words "everything" and "nothing," how can we confidently rule out answer choice B which has, as its primary 'function-word', "everything"?

Because he doesn't say anything about being imaginary or not. Everything being possible is not the same as everything being purely imaginary. It is making two completely different and distinctive statements. In Cinderella there is a prince and glass slippers. Surely you don't believe that princes and glass slippers are only something that can be imagined? Purely imaginary is too strong and out of the scope because that phrase means that nothing in fairy tails is real (which I contradicted just now). So fantastic is just a phrase that is similar to "everything is possible." Fantastic in itself is not a very specific and strong word, and it can be used in many ways, such as the ways it was used in that question.

[kkklick]

Sometimes I think LSAC dropped the ball, but there's always a reason the correct answer is the correct answer. One question I can think of is in PT 58, the question about 8 geological rocks in a row. I thought that question made no sense but after spending a half hour on it I finally realized what LSAC was thinking. So I doubt their wrong.

[verklempt]

The passage places the two phrases "everything is possible" and "nothing is incredible" in apposition in support of one another. The response to the question must be the line that further solidifies the point made. Response B, "everything is imaginary" seems jarring alongside "everything is possible." It is not likely that anything will be both possible and imaginary; the answer clashes.

The correct answer "nothing seems out of the ordinary" follows naturally from the other two clauses. In the world of the fairy tale, not seeming incredible is equivalent to not seeming extraordinary -- extraordinary and incredible are essentially synonyms.