Q16 - Concetta: Franchot was a great writer

[todavidzheng]

Can someone explain why C is better than B? Thank you!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

So, Concetta makes an argument: Franchot was ahead of her time in understanding industrialization's impact, therefore she was a great writer.

How does Alicia respond? She does two things. First, she says that being ahead of your time in that way isn't enough to make you a great writer. So she disagrees with Concetta's criterion. Then she says that Franchot wasn't even ahead of her time! So Concetta's evidence isn't even accurate.

That's why (C) is correct: Alicia rejects the criterion and disputes the evidence.

(B) is incorrect, on the other hand, because Alicia does not introduce any new evidence, nor does she generalize. She simply says that Alicia's evidence is incorrect.

Does that answer your question?

[alovitt]

I narrowed it down to C and D. Why is D wrong? My thoughts are Alicia disputes Concetta's conclusion (Franchot was a great writer) and then presents facts in support of an alternative criterion (the mark of a great writer is....). Is it wrong because those are not facts, but merely Alicia's opinion?

I definitely see why C is the correcct answer now, but how can I quickly eliminate D?

[giladedelman]

You've got it: she doesn't present facts in support of an alternative criterion. She simply states what that alternative is.

[sweetsecret]

I understand why C is correct, but wouldn't you say that Alicia saying the social consequences of industrialization were widely understood in F's day would be discrediting Concetta's evidence?

[MeenaV936]

Here,

Criterion refers to the way being a great writer is measured, right. Concetta's criterion is being the first to grasp a social issue, and Alicia's criterion is the ability to move people with the power of the written word.

Conclusion is whether or not Franchot was a great writer.

Right?

[ohthatpatrick]

Correct.

Alicia was like, "First of all, you're using the wrong criterion to determine whether F was a great writer. Second, even if we were using your criterion, you'd be wrong (because she wasn't actually ahead of her time)."

To the previous poster, I agree that the first half of (B) is okay. We'd be eliminating (B) based on having a harder time pointing to where Alicia "generalized from new evidence" than we do pointing to where Alicia "disputes a specific claim".

[cgentry]

Question Type:
Procedure
Stimulus Breakdown:
I'm not sure I've ever seen an LR question in which the second person disagrees with the first person to this extent!
The interesting part to this question is that the question itself acknowledges the conclusion: "In her disagreement with Concetta..." already acknowledges Alicia's conclusion.
Instead, the question tasks us with assessing the method of reasoning Alicia uses to arrive at her conclusion. Alicia first disputes Concetta's condition for what makes a writer great.
(There is some element of conditional logic here: what is or is not sufficient to make a writer great, as opposed to what is or is not required to make a writer great. If the answer choices require this level of analysis, we may need to come back to this.)
But wait, there's more! Alicia then says that even if Concetta's condition were correct (the first to understand a social issue), Franchot would still not be a great writer, because she wouldn't fit that condition (she was not the first to understand this issue).
Answer Anticipation:
Hmmm…Alicia completely demolishes Conchetta's argument, but I doubt the LSAT will say quite that! Perhaps something like 'rejects a reason for a characterization (translation: rejects a definition of what makes a great writer) and then rejects…something else'. I'm not sure how the LSAT will phrase the second part, but I want to acknowledge that Alicia had two elements in the rejection of Concetta's argument.
Correct answer:
C
Answer choice analysis:
(A) This one starts off opposite of what we know: Alicia roundly rejects all of Concetta's argument.
(B) While Alicia does discredit Concetta's evidence, Alicia doesn't generalize from new evidence. Alicia's conclusion is specific to Franchot; that is not a generalization.
(Note that 'generalizes from new evidence' is not the same as 'draws a conclusion from a generalization.' Arguably, Alicia draws a conclusion about Franchot from a generalization of what makes a writer great. But that argumentation is not what this choice describes.)
(C) Rejects a criterion is a good substitute for rejects a condition. And then Alicia does dispute whether Franchot was the first to understand this problem. This choice fits nicely.
(D) Tempting, because Alicia does dispute Concetta's conclusion. But the alternative criterion is presented without new facts to support; it stands alone as a bald assertion.
(E) Close, but not as good as C. Alicia does attach Concetta's claim that Franchot was the first to understand this, the other criticism is the criterion, not necessarily the structure of the argument.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Be aware of the difference between generalizations, evidence, criteria, and claims. On the LSAT, these terms are not interchangeable.
#officialexplanation

[JeremyK460]

just adding to the discussion...

there's no evidence or "facts" ever presented - only reasons to accept a claim.

there's no evidence/facts presented showing that F was or wasn't ahead of her time