Q15 - Anderson maintains that travel

[vincent_1vs]

So I originally chose (C) during preptest but was able to select in (E) when reviewing it. Here's my understanding:

Conclusion: Although travel writing has changed in this time, Anderson is too harsh on contemporary travel writers.

The first sentence is what the author purported to refute, and there's no explanation for how that view is formed and what it's based on. So (C) is incorrect.

"the general public is better traveled today than in the past" is used to show one advantage current writers have over the past ones, and it's counterbalanced by a disadvantage "a challenge far greater than the predecessors...", which forced the current writers to work more, hence "transform the task" as in (E).

The author goes on stating despite this disadvantage, the genre has survived and even flourished, which shows the talent of the current writer, and of course, shows that Anderson's criticism is overly harsh.

(A) if anything, the reasoning is backward, better traveled helped create good travel writing, not resulted from it.
(B) wider readership is out of scope
(D) nowhere did the author mention the travel writing flourishes "more today" than the past.

[tommywallach]

Hey Vincent,

Great work here. I'd add a couple little things, just to be clear. Always start by identifying the core of the argument. If you have a strong sense of the conclusion, the other pieces fall into place:

Conclusion: Criticizing travel writers is unfair
Premise: People nowadays travel more --> The job of travel writers is harder

So we're looking for a premise!

A) This isn't a result of anything, it's just a fact. Obviously travel writing can't cause this.
B) While it is evidence, this answer choice mistakes the conclusion.
C) Same as B. This is part of a purported explanation, but the public is never said to be disappointed in travel writing, only Anderson (the jerk). So close!
D) Again, we're talking about why you shouldn't criticize travel writing, not how popular it is (which we don't know anyway).
E) Indeed, notice how the fact that people travel more is immediately followed by the second premise, that the "challenge is far greater" for travel writers now.

Good work on this!

-t

[Nina]

Thanks for detailed explanation. I just have a quick question regarding the function of the last sentence:"That the genre has not only... but also... shows..." Would we define it as an intermediate conclusion?

Thanks a lot!

[tommywallach]

Hey Nina,

Personally, I'd say the last sentence is actually just a restatement of the conclusion ("it's unfair to say travel writers have gotten worse" = "travel writers are very talented") with another mini-added premise ("the genre is flourishing"). Luckily, we don't need to know that to answer the question, because it's a complex little sentence! : )

-t

[uhdang]

Hi, could you check my core? I might be keeping too much information for the Core, but I couldn't throw any out.. and ended up with two intermediate conclusions..

General public is better traveled than in the past today (premise) + not only have to show their readers a place but also make them see it anew (premise)
==>
Travel writers face a greater challenge than predecessors. (intermediate conclusion 1)
==>
the genre’s survival but also flourished shows talent of today’s practitioners. (intermediate conclusion 2) + Anderson maintains travel writing has diminished in quality (premise)
==>
Anderson is too harsh on contemporary travel writers. (Final conclusion)

[rinagoldfield]

Looks great, uhdang. Keep up the good work.