- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:44 pm
#22663
Question #11: Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
After a start littered with Family #2 (Help) questions, we’ve now transitioned into a long stretch—five in a row at this point—of Family #1 (Prove) questions. It’s rare to have that degree of consistency in bulk, so hopefully you’ve been able to find a rhythm and take advantage.
This is a Method of Reasoning question where we need to understand the structure of the argument as a whole, and then describe the reasoning involved using more abstract language. I view this as a matching exercise of sorts: each generalized piece of the correct answer must have a corresponding, specific piece in the stimulus.
Once again, we find at the outset an attribution of a particular viewpoint to some non-author group: critics believe that Sauk’s work lacks merit because it uses the symbols of his mentor, Providence, to support a political ideal that Providence himself would reject. Put simply, Sauk advocates a position by using the tools of someone who would reject that position, and this, in the eyes of the critics, devalues the work.
The literature professor’s argument doesn’t deny the truth of that premise—Sauk does indeed use symbolic motifs to support a view the motifs’ creator would disavow—and actually goes a step further in criticizing Sauk’s ability (he is more imitator than innovator in his writings), but allows that these facts do nothing to undermine the genuine merit of Sauk’s work. They are, in a word, inconsequential. Unsurprisingly then the professor concludes that the critics’ argument about Sauk’s writing should be rejected...not because the critics are definitively wrong, but because their evidence isn’t sufficient to prove that they’re right.
So how can we summarize this? Let’s look at the pieces. There’s the establishment of an out-group’s viewpoint, whose premises the professor agrees with. Then there’s the allowance of a markedly different conclusion, seemingly from a belief that the premises do little, if anything, to prove the first group’s view. In the professor’s eyes the premises are beside the point and no absolute conclusions can be drawn. It’s a “your facts are correct but irrelevant” type claim.
We need an answer that accounts for those pieces—agreement on facts, disagreement on whether those facts prove anything—without permitting any additional, non-stimulus information to creep in.
Answer choice (A): No. The professor never denies the truth of the claims made in support of the critics’ conclusion. It’s the conclusion itself the professor dismisses.
Answer choice (B): is tricky, but ultimately a misrepresentation of the professor’s conclusion. The professor is not arguing in favor of Sauk, and certainly never goes so far as to say Sauk’s work has “aesthetic merit.” Rather, the argument is that Sauk’s work hasn’t been shown to lack aesthetic merit, so concluding that it is lacking is a mistake. It’s a subtle but important distinction.
Answer choice (C): This is an easy answer to choose if you start making assumptions beyond what’s allowed by the information at hand. We’re told that some of the critics disagree with Sauk’s political ideals, but this is not what the professor uses to attack their argument. The professor rejects their argument based on what he feels their evidence can prove, not based on their personal motivations.
Answer choice (D): is similar to (A), and incorrect for the same reason. The claims made in support of the conclusion (the premise about Sauk using Providence’s symbolic motifs) are agreed upon by all parties as correct. The dispute is over what those claims reliably establish.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. As is hopefully obvious by now, the professor’s case centers on just how relevant the claims about Sauk’s appropriation of Providence’s themes are to a definitive opinion on the merit of Sauk’s work. In the professor’s eyes the claims have no bearing on that judgment, and answer choice (E) reflects that disconnect between premise and conclusion nicely.
After a start littered with Family #2 (Help) questions, we’ve now transitioned into a long stretch—five in a row at this point—of Family #1 (Prove) questions. It’s rare to have that degree of consistency in bulk, so hopefully you’ve been able to find a rhythm and take advantage.
This is a Method of Reasoning question where we need to understand the structure of the argument as a whole, and then describe the reasoning involved using more abstract language. I view this as a matching exercise of sorts: each generalized piece of the correct answer must have a corresponding, specific piece in the stimulus.
Once again, we find at the outset an attribution of a particular viewpoint to some non-author group: critics believe that Sauk’s work lacks merit because it uses the symbols of his mentor, Providence, to support a political ideal that Providence himself would reject. Put simply, Sauk advocates a position by using the tools of someone who would reject that position, and this, in the eyes of the critics, devalues the work.
The literature professor’s argument doesn’t deny the truth of that premise—Sauk does indeed use symbolic motifs to support a view the motifs’ creator would disavow—and actually goes a step further in criticizing Sauk’s ability (he is more imitator than innovator in his writings), but allows that these facts do nothing to undermine the genuine merit of Sauk’s work. They are, in a word, inconsequential. Unsurprisingly then the professor concludes that the critics’ argument about Sauk’s writing should be rejected...not because the critics are definitively wrong, but because their evidence isn’t sufficient to prove that they’re right.
So how can we summarize this? Let’s look at the pieces. There’s the establishment of an out-group’s viewpoint, whose premises the professor agrees with. Then there’s the allowance of a markedly different conclusion, seemingly from a belief that the premises do little, if anything, to prove the first group’s view. In the professor’s eyes the premises are beside the point and no absolute conclusions can be drawn. It’s a “your facts are correct but irrelevant” type claim.
We need an answer that accounts for those pieces—agreement on facts, disagreement on whether those facts prove anything—without permitting any additional, non-stimulus information to creep in.
Answer choice (A): No. The professor never denies the truth of the claims made in support of the critics’ conclusion. It’s the conclusion itself the professor dismisses.
Answer choice (B): is tricky, but ultimately a misrepresentation of the professor’s conclusion. The professor is not arguing in favor of Sauk, and certainly never goes so far as to say Sauk’s work has “aesthetic merit.” Rather, the argument is that Sauk’s work hasn’t been shown to lack aesthetic merit, so concluding that it is lacking is a mistake. It’s a subtle but important distinction.
Answer choice (C): This is an easy answer to choose if you start making assumptions beyond what’s allowed by the information at hand. We’re told that some of the critics disagree with Sauk’s political ideals, but this is not what the professor uses to attack their argument. The professor rejects their argument based on what he feels their evidence can prove, not based on their personal motivations.
Answer choice (D): is similar to (A), and incorrect for the same reason. The claims made in support of the conclusion (the premise about Sauk using Providence’s symbolic motifs) are agreed upon by all parties as correct. The dispute is over what those claims reliably establish.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. As is hopefully obvious by now, the professor’s case centers on just how relevant the claims about Sauk’s appropriation of Providence’s themes are to a definitive opinion on the merit of Sauk’s work. In the professor’s eyes the claims have no bearing on that judgment, and answer choice (E) reflects that disconnect between premise and conclusion nicely.