Q20 - Critic: It is common to argue that

by **mshinners** Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

Question Type:
Determine the Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
A whole bunch of info is presented about a counterpoint. The author then pivots to the conclusion (the distinction is specious). This is the conclusion because it's the critic's opinion of the counterpoint. The following statement is support for the conclusion, explaining why it's true. The last sentence, which is the statement in question, is the reason why no work should be interpreted, so it's support for an intermediate conclusion.

Answer Anticipation:
The correct answer will state it's a premise in the author's argument. It could state that it's support for an intermediate conclusion, but I'd also pick an answer that states it supports the author's conclusion (since anything supporting an intermediate conclusion also supports the main conclusion).

Correct Answer:
(B)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) The statement in question is support, not the conclusion.

(B) Bingo. I would probably check the others to see if there's an answer mentioning support of an intermediate conclusion, but I don't expect to find that (as then there would be two correct answers). If that answer did show up, I'd need to re-read this answer and that one more carefully to see what I was missing that made one of these wrong - it'd be in the phrasing of the answer choice, though, and not my understanding of the role of the statement.

(C) I don't know how practical the discussion is. Either way, they author's conclusion is that the distinction is specious, the practical implications of which aren't explored here. (If anything, this explores the practical implications of the intermediate conclusion, which would render an answer treating the argument as only having one conclusion - "the critic's conclusion" - incorrect.)

(D) The counterpoint discusses the nature of the distinction. The critic thinks there isn't one.

(E) If anything, the statement after the em dash ("not because…") is the author anticipating an objection. The last statement serves to justify why that objection doesn't apply.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Don't get caught up in the difficult language here - this argument takes on the standard argument structure (counterpoint→conclusion→premise).

#officialexplanation

by **LukeM22** Wed May 16, 2018 4:16 am

For the sake of having an approach that will apply to other questions of the same category, would it be fair to say that, while that claim supports the conclusion, that it doesn't directly support the conclusion? To me, it seems that it supports the idea that no work should be interpreted-- that is, it supports an IC that in turn supports the conclusion. As a standalone sentence, it doesn't appear immediately relevant to the conclusion. I ask this because I've seen questions like this where the trap answer was "directly supports the conclusion". and the correct answer was "supports an IC that in turn supports the conclusion"

by **ohthatpatrick** Thu May 17, 2018 2:08 am

Sure, it would be more appropriate to call this indirect than direct support for the main conclusion.

They also sometimes use the phrase "partial support" when there's more than one supporting idea.

If they're not qualifying what type of support it is, then we don't need to distinguish. Generally, if it exists anywhere in our author's Support Zone (even if it's ruling out an objection), then it's safe to say that it's support.

by **EmilyL849** Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:15 pm

Hi, Gurus.

I have one question.

Would it be right to say the claim that "when evaluating a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact" is the practical implications of interpreting a work?

I feel like this portion is practical implication of something... but not sure exactly of what.

Thank you.

by **ohthatpatrick** Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:05 pm

If I were to conclude that "making a distinction between literary fiction and genre fiction is specious/dumb", then the practical implication of that conclusion would be "I will no longer make that distinction nor respect it when other people do so."

If I were to conclude that "no work should be interpreted", then the practical implication would be "next time I read a work, I won't try to interpret it ... I'll just let it emotionally impact me however it does."

A 'practical implication', in other words, would be how our behavior or thinking will change as a result of a certain claim being true.

Meanwhile, that last sentence, which you highlighted, is not practical / actionable advice. It's the reason FOR the conclusion that "we shouldn't interpret any work". Why not? Because doing so cuts us off from the work's emotional impact.

If we accept that rationale, and we think staying attuned to emotional impact is so important that we would agree with the conclusion that "no work should be interpreted", then the practical implication would be "stop trying to interpret works".

Hope this helps.

Q20 - Critic: It is common to argue that

Q20 - Critic: It is common to argue that

Re: Q20 - Critic: It is common to argue that

Re: Q20 - Critic: It is common to argue that

Re: Q20 - Critic: It is common to argue that

Re: Q20 - Critic: It is common to argue that