Some theorists argue that literary critics should strive to be value-neutral in their literary criticism. These theor...

Jacob-R on November 30, 2018

I’m happy to help. As always, let’s start with the question stem. We are looking for an answer that will allow the argument’s conclusion if we assume that answer.

In order to find that, we need to understand the argument. Premise: some theorists say: strive to be value—neutral. But literary criticism cannot be completely value-neutral. Therefore, some theorists are wrong about an appropriate goal.

Do you see the gap? See how we have a statement about “striving” vs. a statement about being unable to be “completely” value neutral? Surely there is some distance between those two options that could impact the conclusion that one should not even try to “strive” to be value neutral?

And that is what answer B offers — it closes that gap. It tells us that if it is possible to be completely value neutral, then critics shouldn’t even try.

I hope that helps! Please let us know if you have further questions.

mexicangirl on August 6, 2020

I am still confuse. Can you explain it in a different way?