|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 332
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early [#permalink]
17 Apr 2007, 06:21
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early editors of Dickinson’s poetry often distorted her intentions. Yet Johnson’s own, more faithful, text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion. To standardize Dickinson’s often indecipherable handwritten punctuation by the use of the dash is to render permanent a casual mode of poetic phrasing that Dickinson surely never expected to see in print. It implies that Dickinson chose the dash as her typical mark of punctuation when, in fact, she apparently never made any definitive choice at all.
Which of the following best summarizes the author’s main point?
(A) Although Johnson is right in criticizing Dickinson’s early editors for their distortion of her work, his own text is guilty of equally serious distortions.
(B) Johnson’s use of the dash in his text of Dickinson’s poetry misleads readers about the poet’s intentions.
(C) Because Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published, virtually any attempt at editing it must run counter to her intentions.
(D) Although Johnson’s attempt to produce a more faithful text of Dickinson’s poetry is well-meaning, his study of the material lacks sufficient thoroughness.
(E) Dickinson’s editors, including Johnson, have failed to deal adequately with the problem of deciphering Dickinson’s handwritten manuscripts.
OA B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1481
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
59
[0], given: 13
|
javed wrote: Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early editors of Dickinson’s poetry often distorted her intentions. Yet Johnson’s own, more faithful, text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion. To standardize Dickinson’s often indecipherable handwritten punctuation by the use of the dash is to render permanent a casual mode of poetic phrasing that Dickinson surely never expected to see in print. It implies that Dickinson chose the dash as her typical mark of punctuation when, in fact, she apparently never made any definitive choice at all.
Which of the following best summarizes the author’s main point?
(A) Although Johnson is right in criticizing Dickinson’s early editors for their distortion of her work, his own text is guilty of equally serious distortions.
Equally Serious?? The passage only says Johnson's text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion ..... discard.
(B) Johnson’s use of the dash in his text of Dickinson’s poetry misleads readers about the poet’s intentions.
Exactly
(C) Because Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published, virtually any attempt at editing it must run counter to her intentions.
That's going too far. We don't have evidence to believe Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published. Irrelevant.
(D) Although Johnson’s attempt to produce a more faithful text of Dickinson’s poetry is well-meaning, his study of the material lacks sufficient thoroughness.
Out of scope and irrelevant
(E) Dickinson’s editors, including Johnson, have failed to deal adequately with the problem of deciphering Dickinson’s handwritten manuscripts.
This shifts the focus from analyzing distortions created by Dickinson's editors to deciphering Dickinson's handwritten manuscripts -- out of scope and irrelevant
OA B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
Another CR knocked out of the park by Mr dwivedys  ...B it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1134
Location: India
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 1
|
Spot on explaination  .
_________________
Trying hard to conquer Quant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 177
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Is dwivedys an engilsh teacher or what
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 215
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
Thanks dwivedy for the explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 281
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Is dwivedys an engilsh teacher or what Laughing
That is where CR comes in to picture.
An English teacher need not be good at CR
But our GMAT'er dwivedys sure is
Nice explanation dwivedys
_________________
AimHigher
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 737
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 4
|
dwivedys wrote: javed wrote: Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early editors of DickinsonтАЩs poetry often distorted her intentions. Yet JohnsonтАЩs own, more faithful, text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion. To standardize DickinsonтАЩs often indecipherable handwritten punctuation by the use of the dash is to render permanent a casual mode of poetic phrasing that Dickinson surely never expected to see in print. It implies that Dickinson chose the dash as her typical mark of punctuation when, in fact, she apparently never made any definitive choice at all.
Which of the following best summarizes the authorтАЩs main point?
(A) Although Johnson is right in criticizing DickinsonтАЩs early editors for their distortion of her work, his own text is guilty of equally serious distortions.
Equally Serious?? The passage only says Johnson's text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion ..... discard.
(B) JohnsonтАЩs use of the dash in his text of DickinsonтАЩs poetry misleads readers about the poetтАЩs intentions.
Exactly
(C) Because Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published, virtually any attempt at editing it must run counter to her intentions.
That's going too far. We don't have evidence to believe Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published. Irrelevant.
(D) Although JohnsonтАЩs attempt to produce a more faithful text of DickinsonтАЩs poetry is well-meaning, his study of the material lacks sufficient thoroughness.
Out of scope and irrelevant
(E) DickinsonтАЩs editors, including Johnson, have failed to deal adequately with the problem of deciphering DickinsonтАЩs handwritten manuscripts.
This shifts the focus from analyzing distortions created by Dickinson's editors to deciphering Dickinson's handwritten manuscripts -- out of scope and irrelevant
OA B
I am not able to accept B as answer.
The question asks us to find out an option that best summarizes the authorтАЩs main point.
The main point seems to be: Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early editors of DickinsonтАЩs poetry often distorted her intentions. Yet JohnsonтАЩs own, more faithful, text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion.
B seems to be a sort of example given to illustrate Jhonson's mistake.
I do not see any problem with "decipher" in E. Because the statement says "To standardize DickinsonтАЩs often indecipherable handwritten punctuation"
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1481
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
59
[0], given: 13
|
aurobindo wrote: dwivedys wrote: javed wrote: Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early editors of DickinsonтАЩs poetry often distorted her intentions. Yet JohnsonтАЩs own, more faithful, text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion. To standardize DickinsonтАЩs often indecipherable handwritten punctuation by the use of the dash is to render permanent a casual mode of poetic phrasing that Dickinson surely never expected to see in print. It implies that Dickinson chose the dash as her typical mark of punctuation when, in fact, she apparently never made any definitive choice at all.
Which of the following best summarizes the authorтАЩs main point?
(A) Although Johnson is right in criticizing DickinsonтАЩs early editors for their distortion of her work, his own text is guilty of equally serious distortions.
Equally Serious?? The passage only says Johnson's text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion ..... discard.
(B) JohnsonтАЩs use of the dash in his text of DickinsonтАЩs poetry misleads readers about the poetтАЩs intentions.
Exactly
(C) Because Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published, virtually any attempt at editing it must run counter to her intentions.
That's going too far. We don't have evidence to believe Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published. Irrelevant.
(D) Although JohnsonтАЩs attempt to produce a more faithful text of DickinsonтАЩs poetry is well-meaning, his study of the material lacks sufficient thoroughness.
Out of scope and irrelevant
(E) DickinsonтАЩs editors, including Johnson, have failed to deal adequately with the problem of deciphering DickinsonтАЩs handwritten manuscripts.
This shifts the focus from analyzing distortions created by Dickinson's editors to deciphering Dickinson's handwritten manuscripts -- out of scope and irrelevant
OA B
I am not able to accept B as answer. The question asks us to find out an option that best summarizes the authorтАЩs main point. The main point seems to be: Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early editors of DickinsonтАЩs poetry often distorted her intentions. Yet JohnsonтАЩs own, more faithful, text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion. B seems to be a sort of example given to illustrate Jhonson's mistake. I do not see any problem with "decipher" in E. Because the statement says "To standardize DickinsonтАЩs often indecipherable handwritten punctuation"
Aurobindo - without gainsaying (denying) whatever you've said - you're on pretty solid ground - inasmuch as B does seem like a particular example meant as an illustration of Johnson's mistake.
However, SEMANTICS of what B looks like or not aside - the problem with E is a bit more fundamental - E says PROBLEM OF DECIPHERING DICKINSON'S HANDWRITTEN MANUSCRIPTS. I don't think the sentence deals with the PROBLEM OF DECIPHERING Dickinson's manuscript.
The sentence only says TO STANDARDIZE DickinsonтАЩs often indecipherable handwritten punctuation is to render permanent etc... that doesn't mean these authors were tasked with DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM of dickinson's handwriting.
remember PROBLEM is the keyword - there was no such PROBLEM and hence the SHIFT OF FOCUS OF E.
Hope this helps. I have a tendency to oversimplify and overexplain - so please bear with me and pardon me if I have gone overboard explaining.
Saurabh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 332
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
dwivedys wrote: aurobindo wrote: dwivedys wrote: javed wrote: Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early editors of DickinsonтАЩs poetry often distorted her intentions. Yet JohnsonтАЩs own, more faithful, text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion. To standardize DickinsonтАЩs often indecipherable handwritten punctuation by the use of the dash is to render permanent a casual mode of poetic phrasing that Dickinson surely never expected to see in print. It implies that Dickinson chose the dash as her typical mark of punctuation when, in fact, she apparently never made any definitive choice at all.
Which of the following best summarizes the authorтАЩs main point?
(A) Although Johnson is right in criticizing DickinsonтАЩs early editors for their distortion of her work, his own text is guilty of equally serious distortions.
Equally Serious?? The passage only says Johnson's text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion ..... discard.
(B) JohnsonтАЩs use of the dash in his text of DickinsonтАЩs poetry misleads readers about the poetтАЩs intentions.
Exactly
(C) Because Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published, virtually any attempt at editing it must run counter to her intentions.
That's going too far. We don't have evidence to believe Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published. Irrelevant.
(D) Although JohnsonтАЩs attempt to produce a more faithful text of DickinsonтАЩs poetry is well-meaning, his study of the material lacks sufficient thoroughness.
Out of scope and irrelevant
(E) DickinsonтАЩs editors, including Johnson, have failed to deal adequately with the problem of deciphering DickinsonтАЩs handwritten manuscripts.
This shifts the focus from analyzing distortions created by Dickinson's editors to deciphering Dickinson's handwritten manuscripts -- out of scope and irrelevant
OA B
I am not able to accept B as answer. The question asks us to find out an option that best summarizes the authorтАЩs main point. The main point seems to be: Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early editors of DickinsonтАЩs poetry often distorted her intentions. Yet JohnsonтАЩs own, more faithful, text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion. B seems to be a sort of example given to illustrate Jhonson's mistake. I do not see any problem with "decipher" in E. Because the statement says "To standardize DickinsonтАЩs often indecipherable handwritten punctuation" Aurobindo - without gainsaying (denying) whatever you've said - you're on pretty solid ground - inasmuch as B does seem like a particular example meant as an illustration of Johnson's mistake. However, SEMANTICS of what B looks like or not aside - the problem with E is a bit more fundamental - E says PROBLEM OF DECIPHERING DICKINSON'S HANDWRITTEN MANUSCRIPTS. I don't think the sentence deals with the PROBLEM OF DECIPHERING Dickinson's manuscript. The sentence only says TO STANDARDIZE DickinsonтАЩs often indecipherable handwritten punctuation is to render permanent etc... that doesn't mean these authors were tasked with DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM of dickinson's handwriting. remember PROBLEM is the keyword - there was no such PROBLEM and hence the SHIFT OF FOCUS OF E. Hope this helps. I have a tendency to oversimplify and overexplain - so please bear with me and pardon me if I have gone overboard explaining. Saurabh.
Saurab thanks for the lucid explanation. Well i dont think you have everexplain the problem i think you have done a very good job. And on behalf of everybody i thank you for walking us through your explanation.I think i have learned something and i am sure that everybody else have learned something or the other form you.
So keep up the good work and i can already see the doors of havard opening for you.
Javed.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|