#20 - Critic: It is common to argue that there is a

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method-Argument Part. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I found B to sufficient, but struggled to see why C was wrong. Isn't cutting oneself off from the emotional impact a valid practical implication of interpreting a work? The only issue I could see is that it says "of the critic's conclusion" and maybe I misidentified the conclusion. Can you point out what is the conlusion and why C is wrong? Thank you.

V/r,

Micah

[Jonathan Evans]

MPaulson,

Rely on your prephrasing here. It's a premise. It's a reason why "no work should be interpreted." The statement answers the question: "Why shouldn't we interpret literary works for their themes and ideas?" Because then we would be cut off from these works' emotional impact.

A couple more points: Answer Choice (C) turns this relationship on its head. It's no longer support for but rather a consequence of the conclusion. Further, it's not a particularly "practical" concern.

It's the kind of answer that is designed to attract test-takers if they haven't come up with a good description (prephrase) of the structure of the argument in the stimulus.

[NeverMissing]

I'm having difficulty identifying the main conclusion of the argument. I know it is one of the two following, but I was unable to determine which one was the main conclusion.

1. The distinction between literary and genre fiction is a specious distinction.
2. No work of fiction should be interpreted.

It seems like 2 supports 1 (perhaps as an intermediate conclusion?), but then, the premise that immediately follows these two sentences in the argument (the one the question is about) seems to lend support to 2, and does little to help 1.

[Kristina Moen]

Hi NeverMissing,

This is a fairly common argument structure, so it's a great question to study.

Here's the common argument structure: "Some people think X. I disagree. Here's why." The main point of that argument is "I disagree." Let's apply it to the argument in the stimulus.

"It is common to argue that there is a distinction between “literary” and “genre” fiction. The first should be interpreted, so this argument goes, while the second is merely a source of easy pleasure." This is the "Some people think X" part. It's offered as a belief that the author is then going to refute.

"But this is a specious distinction"- This is the "I disagree" part, or the CONCLUSION!

"not because every work should be interpreted, but because no work should be. When we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work’s emotional impact." This is the "Here's why" part, or the PREMISE!

You'll see this structure often on the test. Hopefully you'll think back to this question!

[Khodi7531]

I chose C over B when I was debating.

I thought C got at how it both supports the conclusion/ argument while also stating the impact of what the author doesn't want you to do.

But can I have gotten rid of C because it just says "spell out the implication" as opposed to adding that it also supports. I knew the answer would have to state this somewhere because it does support the conclusion/ or the IC which ultimately supports the conclusion itself.

[Adam Tyson]

I'm going to point you back to Jonathan's explanation in this thread, khodi. The claim we are looking at is a premise, supporting the conclusion about a specious distinction (which appears to match your prephrase). It is not an implication of the conclusion (which means the conclusion would suggest it is true), but something that supports that conclusion (it suggests that the conclusion is true). A premise can "spell out the implication" of something, but it wouldn't spell out the implication of the conclusion. As you said, it needs to support that conclusion.

[CPA2lawschool]

I went back and forth between B and D here. Would someone mind to share their thoughts on why AC D is incorrect?

Thanks!

[Brook Miscoski]

CPA2lawschool,

The most salient reason why (D) is incorrect is that the critic does not make a distinction; instead, the critic argues that we should not make any distinction at all in how we read fiction.

[pmuffley]

I see that this has been addressed here but still need further clarification. Earlier you guys said that this was not an implication. Are they using "implication" here similar to the way they use "inference"?

When I read it I thought:
conclusion: it's a specious distinction
why: Because when we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work’s emotional impact.

A consequence of the conclusion being superficially plausible, but actually wrong is that we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact when we adhere to the wrong way of distinguishing between the two things.