Actor: Bertolt Brecht’s plays are not genuinely successful dramas. The roles in Brecht’s plays express such incongruous motives and beliefs that audiences, as well as the actors playing the roles, invariably find it difficult, at best, to discern any of the characters’ personalities. But, for a play to succeed as a drama, audiences must care what happens to at least some of its characters.
The conclusion of the actor’s argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) An audience that cannot readily discern a character’s personality will not take any interest in that character.
(B) A character’s personality is determined primarily by the motives and beliefs of that character.
(C) The extent to which a play succeeds as a drama is directly proportional to the extent to which the play’s audiences care about its characters.
(D) If the personalities of a play’s characters are not readily discernible by the actors playing the roles, then those personalities are not readily discernible by the play’s audience.
(E) All plays that, unlike Brecht’s plays, have characters with whom audiences empathize succeed as dramas.
A. Correct. This answer correctly matches the gap in the diagram above. It's the right choice because it directly addresses the issue in the stimulus.
B. This answer merely reuses two concepts from the stimulus without adding new information or a clear connection to the argument. The LSAT loves to throw in answers that sound reasonable but don't directly respond to the question.
C. Be careful with terms like "directly proportional." The LSAT often uses such terms in incorrect answers because direct proportionality is rarely relevant in a logical argument. You're looking for a more nuanced connection, not just a simple, linear relationship.
D. This answer adds an irrelevant rule that's not related to the specifics of Brecht's work. Even though it might sound like it could apply, it doesn't actually contribute to the argument about Brecht’s plays and their reception.
E. This answer seems like it's focused on a "Personality ➞ succeed" relationship, but it doesn’t address the essential aspect of proving which plays succeed or don’t succeed. You need to focus on the necessary conditions for a play's success, not just a causal connection.
