#19 - Specific Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[ChicaRosa]

I'm trying to understand why B is the correct answer instead of E?

I chose E because in ln 17-21 it said that the close reading of a text by an analytical philosopher was sufficient to establish it's meaning even if he had no knowledge of the period's text composition.

So is B correct because a analytical philosopher wouldn't need knowledge of the period's text composition?

Thanks!

[Francis O'Rourke]

Choice (E) has two problems in it. The first is the phrase "expressed most clearly." The idea that a particular person could correctly interpret a law (or as you say, an analytic philosopher is sufficient to establish the meaning) does not mean that this person can express the law more clearly than anyone else.

The second error that Choice (E) commits is to confuse the author's usage of this example. The writer is using an analytic philosopher as an example of someone who has no knowledge of the historical linguistic constraints of the society it was written in. Choice (E) combines this with someone who has historical context, but the 1950's assumed that no historical context was needed!

[mariahenain]

I understand the first problem with answer choice E listed above. However, I'm having trouble understanding the second. Additionally, could you please provide an explanation justifying choice B as correct?

Thank you!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Mariahenain,

Let's discuss this question in full. The question asks about the "meaning of a political text" according to the "assumptions of the 1950s." In other words, how would someone view a political text through the lens of the assumptions of the 1950s.

The first thing to do would be to find evidence in the text about what these assumptions were. We find the relevant passage starting around line 14 of the text. Starting here, we may note the following:

• Historians of literature aware that writers work within traditions.
• In the 1950s, this concept was not applied to the history of political ideas.
• In the 1950s, the view was a close reading of a political text by an analytical philosopher is sufficient to establish meaning, even if this philosopher had no knowledge of context.

This is roughly all the relevant information in the text about "assumptions of the 1950s." Now, what can we prove on the basis of this information. What can we deduce about the meaning of a political text from this viewpoint?

1. This answer directly contradicts the passage. In the 1950s, literary historians' concepts were not applied to political texts.
2. This is the credited response. According to the evidence in the passage, knowledge of a text's historical background was not necessary to establish definitively the meaning of a political text.
3. We have no evidence to support this claim. There is no mention of different meanings based on different philosophic approaches.
4. This answer borrows from an idea expressed at the beginning of the passage about an assumption underlying Pocock's work.
   This has nothing to do with the assumptions of the 1950s.
5. As noted above, we have no evidence about degrees of clarity in an interpretation of a political text's meaning. Furthermore,
   this answer choice directly contradicts the evidence in the passage insofar as the passage states that no knowledge of a political text's historical context is necessary to establish a text's meaning.

I hope this helps!