Nielgmat wrote:
(E) It offers a counterexample that calls into question part of Joel’s definition of myth.
I chose option E. But now I realise it is wrong. The reason pertains to the highlighted portion. The definition of 'myth' is not being questioned, the non-existence of myths is.
That way, I can eliminate 4 wrong choices. But I still dont understand Option A.
Help pls..
E is the right answer here. May be you meant something else, if not point out.
See the passage below.
The blue text are the argument and counter argument.
Quote:
Joel: A myth is a narrative told to convey a community’s traditional wisdom. Myths are not generally told in the modern world because there are no longer bodies of generally accepted truths that can be conveyed in this way.
Giselle: Of course there are myths in the modern world. For example, there is the myth of the machine: we see the human body as a machine, to be fixed by mending defective parts. This may not be a narrative, but what medically trained specialist can deny the existence of that myth?
Which one of the following most accurately characterizes Giselle’s response to Joel’s statement?
(A) It offers a scientific explanation to a problem of literary theory. - WRONG. Literary theory is an unnecessary stretch to what is not altogether being discussed.
(B) It points out a weakness in Joel’s position by advancing an analogous position. - WRONG. Looks good but by offering her own position wrt Joel's, Giselle, in a way, only adds to Joel's argument but in a counteracting manner. Analogy is fine but weakness not.
(C) It is based on an unsupported distinction between traditional societies and the modern world. - WRONG. Plain wrong.
(D) It assumes that Joel is medically trained specialist. - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(E) It offers a counterexample that calls into question part of Joel’s definition of myth. - CORRECT. 'Part of' is the most important aspect
of this choice.
Hope this helps.
It certainly helps. Thank you. I mistakenly thought my answer was wrong. So I analysed option B again but couldn't eliminate it on solid grounds, probably because I did not not understand it fully. And so I started doubting my analysis of option E. Thanks again.