Q6 - Poor writers often express

[jimmy902o]

In this question I chose C and am not sure why its wrong.. the stimulus seems to imply that poor writers should not be using elaborate syntax or complex ideas because it can be misleading. So if a principle was introduced, namely, that only the most talented writers can successfully adopt a complex style would this not adress that poor writers issue?

[timmydoeslsat]

.. the stimulus seems to imply that poor writers should not be using elaborate syntax or complex ideas because it can be misleading.

I bolded a problematic part of your post. I think this where the confusion is coming from, along with a point I will address below. We first want to identify what our task is, which is to logically complete the argument. This is a soft must be true question. We are to choose a principle that is most provable by the argument.

So if a principle was introduced, namely, that only the most talented writers can successfully adopt a complex style would this not adress that poor writers issue?

We do not want to strengthen the argument. If we look at answer choice C, is it anywhere close to being logically provable? Only the most talented writers? I know that poor writers are not that great, but cannot just talented writers do this too? Why are they being excluded? And I am wanting a principle for good writers.

What would be a good principle to extract from this evidence below?:

Alert readers see through the falseness of using boring, normal ideas with fancy language. This is what bad writers often do.

So what should ~bad writers do? From the evidence given, it would be a good bet to not use boring, normal ideas with fancy language.

Answer choice D.

[tzyc]

Is (A) wrong because it does not talk about any writing but about writing which express mundane ideas?

Thank you

[ottoman]

Is A wrong because the quality of writing (the better the writing) is not a major concern in the premises?

[sumukh09]

Is A wrong because the quality of writing (the better the writing) is not a major concern in the premises?

A is wrong simply because that is not what the argument is getting at. It is not suggesting that the simpler the style of writing the better it will be; complex writing may very well be written well if the ideas expressed are complex as well.

[daijob]

When the stimuli says "misunderstand the writing," does it mean people misunderstand what the writer wants to say or misunderstand the skill/capability of the writer?
I also chose A because I thought if it can cause misunderstanding, it is better to be simple...

Thanks

[maryadkins]

"The writing" refers to the actual writing...what the writer has written. It does not refer to the skills or ability of the writer.

[jiangziou]

Here is how I preclude (A)

It is a principal support question. This type of questions often has conclusions that dictate how one should or shouldn't act or behave.

(A) is not a principal. It doesn't show what should writers do. Only (D) looks like a principal since it has "a writing style should not be.."

[dontmesswmeow]

I want to add to the explanations for why (D) is right and (A) is wrong because at my first try I chose (A).

I think the general idea is you should not be pretentious and just write what you actually know (as good writer would not try to express mundane ideas with difficult languages that will confuse readers.

So at a glance, it makes sense and I and some other fellow students might have gotten this question wrong with answer (A).

According to the stimulus, you shouldn't write that 'esoteric language.' What's more, we as students, mostly have been taught thus far that we shouldn't write lengthy or profuse. The more concise and the simpler, the better writing---not matter what language you use. (well, at least, in my case)

So I think, in solving this problem, this lifelong perspective on good writing principle formed sort of a lens that I see the problem through---which shouldn't repeat from this point on.

From this mistake, I learned that I shouldn't rely on or strengthen my previous knowledge or common sense by using the stimulus ahead. I shouldn't do this from this moment on---instead, we all should focus on the stimulus although it is glaring fact that we all know.

Even choosing (A), I felt something is kind of missing bx my choice was actually based on simply general understanding of the stimulus as a whole.

But if you try to analyze the small piece of stimulus, you can get plenty of support for answer (D).

The first sentence kind of holistically mention the idea that good writers shouldn't express mundane ideas with elaborate blah blah blah ,

At this point, I actually thought, 'So, what do you want to speak? So should we stop expressing mundane ideas and rather express inventive/novel ideas only?? because mundane ideas and esoteric vocabulary both sound opinionated in a sense to me.

But then it goes on, "inattentive readers may be impressed but may well misunderstand the writing'
while alert readers see through the poor writing.

==>So from this, we could get the idea that you do not try to deceive people with exaggerated language. Correct understanding is important (as opposed to misunderstanding) and pretentiousness doesn't last. give up on that. If you're going to write about something, write it as it is. Do not exaggerate. be clear. (which shouldn't necessarily be construed as 'simple'.) IDEA should correspond with STYLE.

I'm talking to myself.

[minivatreni]

The stimulus says nothing about complex which is why I thought (D) was wrong. It says poor writers express mundane ideas with complex language, but mundane means boring/dull, it is not to my understanding that mundane means "COMPLEX". You could have a complex idea which is mundane, they mean two different things. So how does (D) make sense as the correct answer choice?