LSAT Explanation PT 22, S4, Q4: Muriel: I admire Favilla's novels, but

LSAT Question Stem

John's statements commit him to which one of the following positions? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Must Be True question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first summarize and analyze the passage. In this conversation, Muriel states her opinion that Favilla should not be considered a great writer due to the lack of variety in her subject matter. John disagrees, arguing that a great writer doesn't need diverse subject matter but must be able to explore a particular theme deeply. The question type for this problem is Must Be True, and it asks us to identify which position John is committed to based on his statements.

To make this conversation more relatable, let's use an example of two people discussing a chef. Muriel might argue that the chef isn't great because they only cook Italian food, while John would counter that the chef can still be great if they can create exceptional Italian dishes.

Now, let's discuss the answer choices:

a) Even if the subject matter in Favilla's writings is not particularly varied, she should not thereby be excluded from being considered a great writer.

This is the correct answer choice. It directly aligns with John's argument that a great writer doesn't need diverse subject matter, as long as they can explore a particular theme deeply.

b) Even if Favilla cannot explore any particular theme deeply in her writings, she should not thereby be excluded from being considered a great writer.

John would disagree with this statement, as he believes that the ability to explore a particular theme deeply is necessary for a writer to be considered great.

c) If Favilla has explored some particular theme exceptionally deeply in her writings, she deserves to be considered a great writer.

John is not committed to this statement. He argues that exploring a theme deeply is necessary for a writer to be considered great, but he doesn't claim that it's the only criterion.

d) If the subject matter in Favilla's writings were exceptionally varied, she would not deserve to be considered a great writer.

John is not committed to this statement either. He doesn't argue that having varied subject matter disqualifies a writer from being considered great.

e) If Favilla's writings show no evidence of a distinctive style, she does not deserve to be considered a great writer.

John does not mention that having a distinctive style is necessary for a writer to be considered great. His focus is on the ability to explore a theme deeply.

In conclusion, based on John's statements, he is committed to the position in answer choice (a): Even if the subject matter in Favilla's writings is not particularly varied, she should not thereby be excluded from being considered a great writer.