I understand that the passage is primarily about Pocock, as Ravi pointed out in his explanation, but my biggest takeaway was that it was his illumination of the idea that the literary tradition in which historical texts are written in which was his biggest contribution -- essentially, he was the first to thoroughly investigate this idea.
My impression of (C) is that the main point is to advocate for the use of Pocock's approach, not to highlight his contribution to his field.
My impression of (E) is that Pocock made a significant contribution to his field through his innovative approach, extending and adding to linguistic historians' understanding of historical texts.
In short, why should we be choosing C over E?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I think there are two issues with E. First, it fails to capture any of the application of this insight. The passage mentions that the insight is the extension, but then spends the vast majority of its time talking about how it was applied, and the benefits and limits of that application.
Second, I don't think the notion is exactly the importance of language in political texts, but rather, linguistic context. To analyze the language is what the old approach was, that of the analytic philosopher looking within the four corners of a text. Instead, the innovation here was to look at language in a context.
Erica November 13, 2024
I am having trouble viewing the answer explanation for question 113 for the humanities passages. How can I view the answer explanations?
Erica November 13, 2024
I am having trouble viewing the answer explanation for question 113 for the humanities passages. How can I view the answer explanations?
