#24 - Certain minor peculiarities of language are used

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (C)

Here the author tells us of the presence of poetic idiosyncrasies which, the author asserts, can be used to identify the authors of previously unattributed works. This seems to be a rather questionable tactic, given that others might create works reflecting that same idiosyncrasy. The correct answer to this weaken question will likely point out this questionable logic, which is why the test discussed will never be completely conclusive.

Answer choice (A): Regardless of the criteria used to determine when the inquiry is undertaken, this answer choice does not describe why the test is inherently unreliable, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): The argument is not that every single work will reflect each peculiarity, but rather that the peculiarities, when they occur, could be used to identify the poet. Since this answer choice does not address the test as presented, it cannot be the right answer choice.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice uses somewhat sophisticated wording to express the prephrase from the discussion above. In simple terms, the presence of such an idiosyncrasy might reflect the writing of a particular author, or it might not.

Answer choice (D): The author does not discuss the contribution of minor peculiarities to the literary effects of a poem, but rather discusses those idiosyncrasies as allowing identification of the creators of previously unattributed works.

Answer choice (E): It doesn't matter whether the referenced peculiarities were created as a result of conscious or unconscious thought—the relevant consideration is whether or not they can be used to identify particular poets as the creators of particular poems.

[Blueballoon5%]

22. Certain minor peculiarities of language are used unconsciously by poets. If such peculiarities appear in the works of more than one poet, they are likely to reflect the language in common use during the poets' time....

For which one of the following reasons can the test described above never provide conclusive proof of the authorship of any poem?

(C) A peculiarity of language in a poem...


My question: I don't understand this weaken question. The correct answer C explains that the unknown poem could be written by many different authors because the peculiarity of language is not unique to the author. However, doesn't the stimulus already consider this (the bold above)? The "fingerprint" test is only considering those peculiarities that are unique to an author.

I hope you can help! Thanks!!

[BethRibet]

Hi Blueballoon,

Thanks for the question.

Actually, the rule provided tells us that if the phrasing shows up in the work of only one poet it's idiosyncratic, if in multiple poets in the time period, it's common use. But the test measures the work of an unknown author against an established poet. Assuming the language in the two poems matches, that won't actually tell us whether the reason for the match is because the unknown author is the same person as the established author, or because they are two different people who were using a phrase in common use at the time. C describes this problem -- the test is consistent with either possibility, and therefore can't conclusively tell you anything for sure other than whether the two poems use some of the same phrasing.

Hope this helps!
Beth

[jessicamorehead]

I chose C as the correct answer because it seemed the strongest. However, I am still unsure as to why B is incorrect. Can someone explain that for me?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi jessica,

To answer this one, look at the particular language that the author employs to make her argument. And though I rarely do this, I'm going to make an analogy here. Because really it helps me personally, to think of her as a detective. If she was investigating a series of crimes instead of poems and she came across fingerprints belonging to her prime suspect in 4 out of the 5 crimes which she was investigating, she would have good cause to believe that suspect was involved in those 4 crimes of course, but what about the 5th one? If she doesn't find fingerprints in that 5th crime can she say one way or another if that suspect was involved? She cannot, but is that a problem for the investigation of the other 4 crimes? It isn't! That is what Answer Option (B) is proposing and really it's not a defect in her method for determining authorship.

Now consider this scenario that Answer (C) can be likened to. Imagine if the detective's prime suspect had a very common fingerprint (I know that's not usually the case, but it does happen from time to time) How are we supposed to determine if that fingerprint came from the prime suspect or any of the other half dozen people in town who have the same print? We cannot! And that's the problem with the detective author's approach. Who can tell if it's a unique or common fingerprint!
Thus Answer (C) correctly weakens her argument and is the correct choice.

Thanks and I hope that helped.

[jessamynlockard]

I also had confusion between B & C, looking back however, the reason B is incorrect goes back to the question stem.

B is essentially saying that this literary fingerprint test might run into cases where it can't determine that whether a particular poem was written by a certain poet because unique linguistic peculiarities might not be present in any given poem. B is making an argument about why there are cases where the fingerprint test might not work.

The question stem, however, asks: "For which one of the following reasons can the test described above *never* provide conclusive proof of the authorship of any poem?"

B might weaken the usefulness of the test, but it still says the test works!

Only C says that there's a flaw inherent to the test: we can never really know if the linguistic "peculiarity" is actually a unique fingerprint or was actually used by others.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi jessamynlockard,

Your reasoning is definitely headed in the right direction - good work! Let me suggest one additional reason B can't be the right answer: We have no idea if the first half of that answer choice is true. Everything coming before the comma is completely new information. Your logic is also sound, though!

[mo_wan]

So, I have a question here. Between B and C

I understand that C is the better because it matches the force of the NEVER. But I am a little confused about the flaw itself, can someone point of the flaw for me.

I read earlier in the forum that others could use this personal slang, and thus not be able to use it to prove.

But doesnt it account for this, when saying IF they appear in the work of only ONE poet --> they are likely to be a personal slang.

I understand when weakening a question you attack necessary condition, could someone clear up both concepts for me.

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with the argument, mo_wan, is that the author assumes that if you find one of these peculiarities in a work of unknown authorship that the work must have been by a known poet who used that same peculiarity. But he already laid out a second possibility earlier in the stimulus - that peculiarity could be used by multiple authors, reflecting the language in common use during the time!

So, Poet Joe is the only one we know who uses the phrase "Bob's your Uncle". We find a poem that uses that phrase but which is not known to be by Joe. Can we then presume that Joe wrote the poem? Maybe he did, but then again, maybe Joe's neighbor, Poet Mike, wrote it! "Bob's your Uncle" could be something that folks in Joe and Mike's parts all said!

In short, we weaken the argument by pointing out that there is another possibility besides the one that the author considered in describing the "fingerprinting" approach.

[ashutosh_73]

Hi, i was torn between (C) and (E), and i finally decided to go with (E). Below is my understanding of why i did do.
Would appreciate the help here:

Question says: ''NEVER ''provide conclusive proof of the authorship of ''ANY'' poem

NEVER & ANY are pretty strong, hence i thought that correct option too can be strong.

Premises state that if the unconsciously minor peculiarities appear in more than one = Common use
if UMP appear in only 1-author = personal idiosyncrasies, hence only 1 author

(C) I thought that premises have made it clear that by checking many authors, scholars can determine whether it is common or uncommon, hence this should be implicit in the option (C). Scholars are gonna check for many authors during that time, right?

(E) Unconscious and conscious are indistinguishable:
This seems to weaken the premise.
As in, ''A Study of 500 Smokers reveals that they ended up having cancer, hence Smoking causes cancer.''
This one can be weaken by saying that Study didn't study the non-smokers. Study was flawed.