Critic: It is common to argue that there is a distinction between "literary" and "genre" fiction. The first should be...

Jeremy on May 3 at 03:37PM

Conclusions

I understand that the argument's conclusion is: "But this is a specious distinction—not because every work should be interpreted, but because NO WORK SHOULD BE." As such the statement that "When we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact" offers support for that conclusion. But how can we know for sure that this is the case rather than the reverse? Couldn't "NO WORK SHOULD BE" be an intermediate conclusion?

4 Replies

Ravi on May 3 at 08:18PM

@JeremyG,

The question box is blank. Did you have a specific question you wanted
to ask about this problem? If you do, let us know. In the meantime,
I'll go over the correct answer.

The overall conclusion of the argument is "this is a specious
distinction," which means that there isn't a true distinction between
"literary" and "genre" fiction. The claim we're looking at is used as
support for the overall conclusion, so it's a premise. The claim helps
to support the intermediate conclusion that no work should be
interpreted, which is used as support for the main conclusion. We need
an answer choice that says the claim that when we evaluate a work
principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the
work's emotional impact is a premise.

(B) says, "It is offered as support for the conclusion."

This is exactly what we're looking for. It's a premise. (B) is our
correct answer choice.

Does this answer your question? Let us know if you have any other questions!

Jeremy on May 5 at 02:59AM

Hi Ravi, reposting my question below. This is a recurring bug.

I understand that the argument's conclusion is: "But this is a specious distinction—not because every work should be interpreted, but because NO WORK SHOULD BE." As such the statement that "When we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact" offers support for that conclusion. But how can we know for sure that this is the case rather than the reverse? Couldn't "NO WORK SHOULD BE" be an intermediate conclusion?

Your answer is very helpful - I misunderstood what the conclusion in the argument was!

Ravi on May 5 at 05:23PM

@JeremyG, your response is blank, so I'm not sure what you intended to say. Do you have other questions on this one? Let us know if you do!

Aidyn on June 25 at 05:54PM

Why is this b and not c