#4 - Muriel: I admire Favilla’s novels, but she does not

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption-SN. The correct answer choice is (A)

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. John is committed to this since it is basically a restatement of John’s claim that “A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter.”

Answer choice (B): John would disagree with this. He claims that the ability to explore a particular theme deeply is necessary for one to be a great writer.

Answer choice (C): John is not committed to this. He claims that the ability to explore a particular theme deeply is necessary for one to be a great writer, but he does not claim that it is sufficient.

Stimulus:

• Great Writer Explore Theme Deeply

To say that:

• Explore Theme Deeply .... Great Writer

is to commit a Mistaken Reversal.

Answer choice (D): John is not committed to this. He does not say that if a writer’s subject matter is exceptionally varied, then he or she is not a great writer.

Answer choice (E): John does not mention that having a distinctive style is necessary for one to be a great writer.

[sofisofi]

Hi I had a question about the structure of John's response. Would the last sentence act as a premise for the conclusion (the first sentence of his statement)?

[Adam Tyson]

That's a good question, sofisofi, and I'm not sure there is a clear answer, but it's worth exploring.

Can we say that John is concluding that the criterion is wrong? To do so, there must be a premise to support that claim. But the way I read the second sentence of John's statement, the first phrase (" A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter") just restates that first sentence. John has just said "that's not the right criterion" twice. Hardly the way a good argument should proceed! If it's an argument at all, it's circular.

When we look at the second phrase of the second sentence ("a great writer must at least have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply"), it doesn't seem to support the claim that the other criterion is wrong. Rather, it just offers what could be an additional criterion, rather than one that displaces the other. But maybe it's saying "because this is a good criterion, therefore the other criterion is incorrect"? Again, if that is meant to be an argument, it's a bad one, because it's possible that both criteria are important, and it's a mistake to assume that if one criterion is important then the other must not be.

I would not call John's statements an argument, because I don't see it as a combination of evidence together with a conclusion. Instead, I see it as just an expression of his opinions, one of which conflicts with Muriel's opinion. And this makes sense if you view this question as being more of a Must Be True than as an Assumption question (and the two question types have a lot in common, so it's easy to look at this from another angle). If John holds true to these opinions, what else must he believe? What conclusion would he be forced to draw? That's answer A.

I hope that helps! It's a fun exercise to try parsing this one out!

[sofisofi]

That's a good question, sofisofi, and I'm not sure there is a clear answer, but it's worth exploring.

Can we say that John is concluding that the criterion is wrong? To do so, there must be a premise to support that claim. But the way I read the second sentence of John's statement, the first phrase (" A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter") just restates that first sentence. John has just said "that's not the right criterion" twice. Hardly the way a good argument should proceed! If it's an argument at all, it's circular.

When we look at the second phrase of the second sentence ("a great writer must at least have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply"), it doesn't seem to support the claim that the other criterion is wrong. Rather, it just offers what could be an additional criterion, rather than one that displaces the other. But maybe it's saying "because this is a good criterion, therefore the other criterion is incorrect"? Again, if that is meant to be an argument, it's a bad one, because it's possible that both criteria are important, and it's a mistake to assume that if one criterion is important then the other must not be.

I would not call John's statements an argument, because I don't see it as a combination of evidence together with a conclusion. Instead, I see it as just an expression of his opinions, one of which conflicts with Muriel's opinion. And this makes sense if you view this question as being more of a Must Be True than as an Assumption question (and the two question types have a lot in common, so it's easy to look at this from another angle). If John holds true to these opinions, what else must he believe? What conclusion would he be forced to draw? That's answer A.

I hope that helps! It's a fun exercise to try parsing this one out!

Thanks! This really cleared things up!