Question Type:
Identify the Conclusion
Stimulus Breakdown:
Premises:
1. Linsey's lyrics are disjointed and subjective.
2. The writings of many modern novelists are disjointed and subjective.
3. These novelists are viewed as good writers.
Conclusion:
The judgement that Linsey is a bad songwriter is ill founded.
Answer Anticipation:
Once you take time to identify the core of the argument and clearly identify the conclusion in particular, we're ready to evaluate answers. Watch out for common traps, like answers that describe premises or ones that describe a claim that was never made in the argument.
Correct answer:
(B)
Answer choice analysis:
(A) This is a very tempting wrong answer. To understand why it's wrong, we need to look carefully at the conclusion. What exactly does "ill founded" mean? It means that the judgement isn't based on solid reasoning. The critic never gives evidence to show that Linsey is a good songwriter, but instead argues that disjointed and subjective lyrics aren't sufficient to prove that someone is a bad songwriter. In other words, Linsey might be a bad songwriter, but not for the reasons given in the first sentence.
(B) This answer is a better match for the actual conclusion than choice (A) is. Stating that the judgement about Linsey is "ill founded" is similar to stating that it is "poorly supported."
(C) This answer choice describes one of the premises, not the conclusion.
(D) This answer choice describes one of the premises, not the conclusion.
(E) This answer choice is similar to choice (A). The critic states that the novelists are widely viewed as good writers, but the critic never states whether Linsey is actually a good songwriter or not.
Takeaway/Pattern:
Identify the Conclusion questions often try to trick us with answers that look similar to the conclusion in the stimulus. Keep an eye open for significant differences in meaning between an answer choice and the actual conclusion of the argument.
#officialexplanation