- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:00 am
#81043
Complete Question Explanation
Method-Argument Part. The correct answer choice is (B).
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!
Answer choice (A):
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.
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.
Also, "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!
Answer choice (D): 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.
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 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.
Answer choice (E):
This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!
Method-Argument Part. The correct answer choice is (B).
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!
Answer choice (A):
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.
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.
Also, "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!
Answer choice (D): 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.
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 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.
Answer choice (E):
This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!
