Q11 - Literature professor: Critics charge that

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Procedure

Stimulus Breakdown:
"Granting that" starts the professor's argument with a concession - the critics are right about Sauk. However, the professor goes on to claim this doesn't show Sauk's writings to be less subtle or powerful, so the critics are wrong in saying that's the case.

Answer Anticipation:
This Procedure question asks how the professor reaches her conclusion. She grants the truth of the critics' premises ("Granting that…") while rejecting their conclusion. Why does she think the critics' premises don't prove their conclusion? She questions the connection between Sauk's imitation and political views and the quality of his work.

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Tempting! However, the author concedes the support ("Granting that" Sauk was derivative and had different political views). It's the connection between these premises and the conclusion that the professor questions.

(B) Out of scope. No one argues that there is definitively aesthetic merit to Sauk's work. The author states that the premises of the critics' argument don't speak to aesthetic merit, which is different than saying it does (or does not) have said merit!

(C) Tempting. The author does mention that many of the critics disagree with Sauk's politics. However, the reason the author states for rejecting their argument is that they haven't connected their critiques to quality, not that they're biased.

(D) Tempting! Similar to (A), however, the author agrees with the premises, so she doesn't say they haven't been shown to be correct. What has not yet been demonstrated correct is their connection to the quality of the work.

(E) Finally! While the author grants the premises, she doesn't agree they've been shown to connect to the quality of the works. That's another way of saying their relevance has not yet been demonstrated.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Procedure questions often turn on subtle distinctions between disagreement and questioning ("You're wrong" vs. "I'm not convinced"). This is also true of other Structure-based questions.

#officialexplanation

[mf1626]

Please explain why (E) is the correct answer.

Conclusion: Sauk lacks aesthetic merit because it employs Providence's own potent system of symbolic motifs in the service of a political ideal that Providence - and significantly some of these critics as well, would reject.

So no aesthetic merit because it uses P's "system" in a way (political-wise) P and the critics would reject. The conclusion (lacks aesthetic merit) has not really been established because they have not been show to be relevant to it (E) vs. (D), they have not shown to be correct?

[betsy.abraham]

I was stuck between D and E as well. When I went back, it said "it has yet to be shown that these facts make his writings any less subtly or ... ". By that, it doesn't necessarily target the correctness of the claims - rather, it's questioning if the claims are relevant at all.

[arendtesque]

The conclusion is "Sauk's work lacks aesthetic merit",
The claim is that "Sauk employs Providence's own uniquely potent system in the service of a political ideal that Providence himself would reject".
If D is correct, then you would expect the stimulus to go as "Sauk does not employ Providence's system", or "Sauk's advocated political ideal wouldn't be rejected by Providence".
But instead, the stimulus goes this way: "GRANTING that Sauk is more imitator than innovator (i.e. he employs Providence's unique system), and that he maintained political views very different from those Providence maintained (i.e. his advocated political ideal would be rejected by Providence)", "IT HAS YET TO BE SHOWN that these facts make his writing any less subtly"
In other words, the stimulus holds that even if the claim was correct (in fact it may or may not be correct, but it's not what the argument is concerned with), it has yet to be shown how this claim supports the conclusion. Why? Because the claim is irrelevant to the conclusion.
Hope this helps

[moshemeer]

(B) Out of scope. No one mentions any aesthetic merit to Sauk's work.

I disagree with why answer choice B is incorrect, the critics say that Sauks work does lack aesthetic merit and I thought the professor was saying it does have merit despite the critics claims.

[mshinners]

I disagree with why answer choice B is incorrect, the critics say that Sauks work does lack aesthetic merit and I thought the professor was saying it does have merit despite the critics claims.

Fair point on the critics saying the Sauk lacks artistic merit. However, this answer choice states Sauk's work does have aesthetic merit, and no one is arguing for that, making the answer out of scope. The author here states that the factors brought up by the critics don't "show[] that these facts make his writings any less subtly or more powerfully crafted" than someone else. The author is stating that we don't know what impact Sauk's imitation and political views have on the aesthetic merit, as they may be more or less subtle; more or less powerful.

In short, the professor argues that imitation and politicization aren't definitively connected to aesthetic merit, and so we should reject the argument. This is different than rejecting a conclusion. Rejecting an argument is saying that the premises don't prove the conclusion; rejecting the conclusion means the conclusion is wrong. If the professor stated that the critics' conclusion should be rejected, (B) would be more tempting.