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

[Robert Carroll]

pmuffley,

"Implication" is synonymous with "inference". The last sentence is a premise. Its implication is the conclusion; it is not the implication of anything (if it were, it would be a conclusion itself). It is certainly not an implication of the conclusion - the conclusion follows from it, and nothing follow from the conclusion.

The author doesn't think his conclusion is superficially plausible. The author thinks his conclusion is correct!

Robert Carroll

[cd1010]

Isn't it more precise to say that the phrase is the premise to the sub-conclusion?
C: this is a specious distinction
Sub C: no work should be
Premise: When we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work’s emotional impact.

This made me hesitant to select B, because I feel like there's been other questions where this distinction mattered.

I then selected D. I thought that the "distinction that the critic considers" could refer to the criteria that the critic is evaluating - whether or not interpretation applies to any or both forms. So, I interpreted this AC to be something like, he's qualifying what he means by that.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi CD,

Isn't it more precise to say that the phrase is the premise to the sub-conclusion?

Let's say for argument's sake that it is. It would still then be support for the conclusion because it supports that sub-conclusion. Whether it's one step away or two, it still helps the main idea, and so (B) still would be correct.

I then selected D. I thought that the "distinction that the critic considers" could refer to the criteria that the critic is evaluating - whether or not interpretation applies to any or both forms. So, I interpreted this AC to be something like, he's qualifying what he means by that.

Part of the reason this answer is attractive is that it is an explanation. So the first part of the answer is correct and that makes it feel strong out of the gate. However, the second part is still a problem. If, as you did, we look at is as the critic just talking about the distinction others have made, is it really "explain[ing] the nature of the distinction" ? I wouldn't say so--the critic already did that above.

At a certain point, we get back to the fact that LSAC thinks (B) is right, so what really matters is why they think (B) is right and why they think (D) is wrong. Hopefully the explanations above help shine a light on their thought process

Thanks!