Q7

[b91302310]

To some extent, I think (A) is too narrow to be the main point. The author has its point of view in this passage but the answer seems only mentioning the meaning of deconstruction.
So, could anyone explain why it oculd be the main point?

Thanks.

[aileenann]

I understand your concern. We don't see deconstruction discussed until the 3rd paragraph, but keep in mind that it is the largest portion of the passage by far. Moreover, the first two paragraphs are really just background - they're setting us up to take all that information about deconstruction in the right context.

Even better methodology, though, would be to work by process of elimination. Could you walk me through why the other 4 answer choices are wrong (mostly they are either too specific or unsupported)?

Thanks!

[b91302310]

Thanks for the explanation. I think my problem is to choose between (A) and (C) because I also think (A) is a bit narrow. However, I think the scope of (A) is larger than that of (C). So, now (A) makes sense for me.

That's how I think for the wrong answer choices:

(B)-We know that the terms signifier and signified were adopted by the movement of deconstruction but neither these terms or the text mentions that deconstruction is an "even more radical" idea. So, this one is unsupported by the text.

(C)-This is supported in the first paragraph. However, this is part of the attribute of deconstructionism. In line 22 and 23 and the third paragraph, since the passage also introduces more complex realm of meaning, we can know that this answer is too narrow to be the main point.

(D)- This answer is unsupported. From line 44 to line 50, we know that deconstructionists do not maintain what a critic should do. Instead, they just distinguish themselves from a critic.

(E)- This one is obviously wrong by its degree because there is no text supporting that progress in the field of literary theory is "best " achieved by looking for new terms. This one goes too far to be true.

If there is anything wrong, please corret it.
Thanks.

[noah]

Let me add my own take on this question to help this discussion.

Tough passage! In general, what was is the passage about? It's a criticism of deconstructionism, focusing on the terminology it uses.

(A) is not a great answer, since it doesn't indicate the author's tone, but it's the best of the bunch. The author does indeed use the terminology to explore what decontructionism is about.

For (B), I find the use of "anticipated" suspect. Does the text refer to those terms coming before the theory?

For (C), think about who is concerned with the relations between old and new words -- it's the author! The author is saying that the deconstruction is an example in which this tension exists. That's different than saying that deconstructionists are concerned about this themselves.

For (D), we find out what deconstructionists do, which we could say is what they maintain. However, that's not the main point by a long stretch--where is the discussion of author's creating works? Narrow scope!

(E) is too strong -- the best?

[lhermary]

For (B), I find the use of "anticipated" suspect. Does the text refer to those terms coming before the theory?

For (C), think about who is concerned with the relations between old and new words -- I'm not sure it's the deconstructionists. I believe it's the author!

For (D), we find out what deconstructionists do, which we could say is what they maintain. However, that's not the main point by a long stretch. Narrow scope!

I agree with you about (E).

Regarding C, the author states that "this seems especially true of the contemporary school or literary criticism" (6-8). So the author is saying this is a characteristic of C. Why is C wrong? What am I missing?

Thanks

(hard passage to read)

[noah]

For (B), I find the use of "anticipated" suspect. Does the text refer to those terms coming before the theory?

For (C), think about who is concerned with the relations between old and new words -- I'm not sure it's the deconstructionists. I believe it's the author!

For (D), we find out what deconstructionists do, which we could say is what they maintain. However, that's not the main point by a long stretch. Narrow scope!

I agree with you about (E).

Regarding C, the author states that "this seems especially true of the contemporary school or literary criticism" (6-8). So the author is saying this is a characteristic of C. Why is C wrong? What am I missing?

Thanks

(hard passage to read)

I edited my explanation to address your question -- that clear it up?

[ttunden]

Can someone please further explain why A is the answer? I got confused with the "endeavor" part. The rest I can understand but that nature of endeavor really tripped me up.

[phoebster21]

Is it advisable to consider the author's tone when answering a main point question. For example, C doesn't address the author's overall snarky, condescending view of deconstructionism at all.

Answer A, kinnnnnnd of hints at this by saying it reveals "the true nature" -i.e. the true nature being that deconstructionist are wrong, unskilled, presumptuous, etc.

[tommywallach]

I think when the tone is that strong, it does indeed become part of the main idea--but they'll never be in conflict, so it shouldn't matter.