Q7

[tirzamullin]

I put A for my answer rather than C. Why would C strengthen the argument? What do eastern cities have to do with being a truly national black theater?

[maryadkins]

Whenever you see strengthen or weaken questions in RC, you can treat them like strengthen and weaken questions in LR. Find the core: what is the author claiming, and what evidence does she use to support it?

Here, the claim is that the "Negro Units" came closer (line 17) than anyone else had to creating a "truly national black theater."

What evidence does she give to support this? We find it in the immediately preceding lines: hundreds of actors...and so forth "were employed by as many as eighteen of these units spread throughout the United States." They defied racism and bureaucracy, and they overcame differences.

In making this assertion, she is assuming what? Well, if they were the FIRST, and the reason she gives for why they were first is because they operated with all of these people across the U.S., she is assuming that equal numbers of people weren't already making African-American theater across the U.S. prior to the Negro Units. (C) strengthens the argument by knocking out this possibility. It tells us that A.A. dramas, previously, were just performed on the east coast in big cities.

(A) is just about black theater groups that existed before the Negro Units. But were they national? We have no clue.

(B) may be tempting, but remember, her argument isn't that the reason it came close to being a national black theater was FUNDING. Her reason is that it was WIDESPREAD.

(D) makes it about audience, while the author is focused on geographic breadth.

(E) doesn't say anything in support of the argument.

Tricky question! I hope this helps clarify.

[MingL143]

The author's conclusion of " defying the external forces of racism and bureaucracy and overcoming internal artistic and personal differences leads to a truly national black theater" can be supported by line 14- cities spread throughout the united states, but to me are more supported by the entire second paragraph. Choice A is in tune with line 29-35. Before " Negro Units", majority of plays were exploring only scripts originated by African American playrights, not as much line 31- "urban realistic dramas depicting contemporary dilemmas for African American, or line 34- dramas written by white playwrights for performance by African American.

I think the highly diversified content, play, forms of Negro Units" were the core through the passage and appreciated by the author. Although Choice C also is strengthening the author's point, but it does not strengthen the core of diversity.

[ohthatpatrick]

Just think for a sec about the words we're trying to support
"this was the first truly national black theater"

(A) This sounds like it's saying
before Negro Units: most plays in black theater were by AA playwrights.

So in order for Negro Units to represent some change, we'd be saying "Before, most plays were written by black writers ... Now, most plays aren't written by black writers."

Does going from "mostly black writers" to "mostly non-black writers" sound like we've shifted from "not truly national black theater" to "truly national black theater"?

No, unless you equate "national" with "more racially diverse".
I would not equate those. "National" is a geographic designation, not a racial one.

(C) sounds like it's saying
"Before, most plays written and produced by black people were done exclusively in large eastern cities ..... Now, most plays written and produced by black people are not exclusive to large eastern cities [they come from other cities as well]"

Does going from "exclusively large eastern cities" to "other areas as well" sound like we've shifted from "not truly national black theater" to "truly national black theater"?

Yes.

By discussing, in your post, what the author chose to focus on throughout most of the passage, your real point of recalibration should be asking yourself why you thought this question stem was asking you to reinforce the predominant content of the passage.

It is asking us to strengthen a claim (not even "an argument", which consists of at least two claims: the premise and the conclusion)

Even though Mary's post about treating RC strengthen/weaken questions like we do LR strengthen/weaken questions is a good reminder, in both RC and LR, if we're asked to strengthen "a claim", we're under no burden to include evidence in the first place. We're just trying to make a sentence sound more believable.

If you're trying to say that X was the first "truly national" black theater, it is more directly relevant to say

before X, most stuff was exclusive to large eastern cities (after X, it included other regions too)

vs.

before X, most stuff was written by black authors (after X, most stuff was written by non-black authors)