avengingangel wrote:Well well well...
The Course book says that answer choices C & B are contenders, but I had C & E as strong contenders, and ultimately chose E (naturally). If I could get some feedback on my thought process, that'd be amazing:
I felt that C & E were basically both great choices, and thus had to really dissect each phrase to see what did or did not "match-up." I found C to not reflect the main idea accurately because, at the end, it says "useful model for historians of political theory" and, after quickly scanning the passage again, I saw no mention of political theory (just political discourse, political texts, political arguments, political thought, political ideas, but no theory). PLEASE NOTE: IF (E) was a completely different (blatantly incorrect) answer, I would have totally selected (C) as my answer choice very confidently, knowing that it's a very easy argument to make that discourse, text, argument, thoughts, and ideas can very well all together be another way of saying 'theory'. I, however, was looking for ANYTHING that put one answer choice over the other. To add, I was unsure if Pocock's approach was inclusive of the 'counterlanguage' that he admitted was as pertinent as civic humanism, which would mean that his approach not being applicable to all 18th cent. political texts was not necessarily true. So, that cast further doubt on C for me.
What I liked about E was the general positive tone/nature of the answer choice regarding Pocock's approach (mirroring that of the author's), and that is specifically calls out his notion as "the importance of language", reflective of how the author closed out the passage(/excerpt): "applaud the historian who...has done the most to make us aware of their importance." Also, of course, that the author made sure to make the connection that "historians of literature have always been aware that writers work within particular traditions", making it a stronger answer choice, in my eyes.
I am aware that the general approach in main point types of questions is not to "match" up to the passage word for word, and that is not my method of attack, but, again, I was trying to discern between the two and thus had to look for elements within the text that were both true of the main point the author was trying to make and consistent with the ancillary components of the passage.
Thanks !!!!!!!
Hello,
"While historians of literature have always been aware that writers work within particular traditions..." is echoed in answer E, yes, but that is just one point from the passage, not the main point. Answer C is better in that it mentions eighteenth-century works, and also mentions Pocock's flawed approach to things, which answer E fails to do. In fact, though you say answer E is positive, that's actually a "negative", in that the passage criticizes Pocock a little, and answer E fails to mention that.
Also, theory is mentioned in the passage, see "Only the occasional epic theorist, like Machiavelli or Hobbes..."
Finally, you say, "To add, I was unsure if Pocock's approach was inclusive of the 'counterlanguage' that he admitted was as pertinent as civic humanism, which would mean that his approach not being applicable to all 18th cent. political texts was not
necessarily true. So, that cast further doubt on C for me." Is what you are trying to say is that just in case Pocock included counterlanguage as part of his method, then maybe his approach would've been applicable to all 18th century political texts?
But just because Quentin Skinner mentioned counterlanguage, that doesn't mean it was part of Pocock's approach; maybe it was just something Pocock admitted later on. And even if it was part of Pocock's approach, it wasn't his
entire approach. Some texts, maybe more of the British ones, may not have been applicable or appropriate to the counterlanguage; and some texts, maybe more of the American ones, may not have been as applicable or appropriate to civic humanism. I.e., Pocock's approach may have been at least
partially inapplicable to some old-time texts.
David
