Critic: People today place an especially high value on respect for oth

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(D)

Leave it to an academic to take all the hilarity out of comedy, huh? Notice how this critic sets up a paradox and promptly resolves it: it would seem to be surprising that people really esteem respect for others, and yet rude (“disrespectful”) comedians are really popular. But the conclusion, signaled by “Thus,” is that that shouldn’t be a surprise, because comedy emerges when people fall short of their ideals. O.K., then that assumes that comedy audiences (people who value respect highly) must fall short of living up to that ideal of respect—which is what (D) gives us, in so many words. Check it using the Kaplan Denial Test: if (D) is false, if people who esteem respect do live up to that ideal, then there must be some other reason for the current popularity of rude comics. (D), if negated, contradicts the author, so (D) must be the right answer. It’s hard, perhaps, to pre-phrase an answer to this question, but a survey of the choices finds the other four way outside the scope:

(A), in fact, contradicts the whole thrust of the argument, which is all predicated on the idea that the very people who esteem respect are the ones who find disrespectful comics to be a scream.

(B) and (C) Each of these cites an exception to a generalization made by the critic; neither, if false, damages the logic. The author is examining why many rude comics are popular, so contrary to (B), the argument permits the possibility of successful and respectful—though perhaps less amusing—comics. And the author addresses the general popularity of rude comics, so contrary to (C), the argument allows for the possibility that some folks don’t find rude comics to be a source of humor.

(E) The argument concerns popular comics and audiences today. No comparison between
comics and audiences of today vs. yesteryear is addressed or implied.

• Ordinarily, Assumption questions lend themselves to pre-phrasing. But if you cannot come up with a key author assumption yourself, no sweat. Check the choices, and apply the Kaplan Denial Test to find the statement whose truth the author is counting on.

Argument -
General trend - high value for respect but in comedy acts - comedians disrespect others.
Author says for successful comedy - exaggerate the general failings of ideals people hold in high esteem.
Since, comedians are exaggerating the general failings, their success is hardly surprising.

Notice - Comedians are exaggerating the general failings. But for this conclusion - we need to assume that people are failing for comedians to exaggerate.

(A) People who enjoy comedians who display disrespect in their acts do not place a high value on respect for others.
- If people do not place high value on respect --> then in peoples' view they are not failing in holding ideals in high esteem --> thus they will not enjoy the exaggeration --> thus contradicts the conclusion
- Wrong

(B) Only comedians who display blatant disrespect in their acts are currently successful.
- This is not necessary not thus the argument assume this thing. The focus is on the comedians who disrespect not on the fact that such comedians are the only successful comedians
- Wrong

(C) Many people disapprove of the portrayal of blatant disrespect for others in comedy acts.
- Irrelevant

(D) People who value an ideal especially highly do not always succeed in living up to this ideal.
- People value respect highly. The comedians can exaggerate only if people cannot maintain this ideal. Thus people sometimes fail in living up to this ideal
- Correct

(E) People today fail to live up to their own ideals more frequently than was the case in the past
- The trick is to not neglect the last part. The option would have been a contender had the option been: People today fail to live up to their own ideals
- The comparison with past cases makes this option irrelevant.
- Wrong

Sheesh. Question from 2003.
D is clearly the right choice.
The argument revolves around the comedians and their portrayal of disrespect in performances. The author wants you to believe that (C) the popularity of such comedians is justified because
1) It is a big deal for people to hold respect for others.
2) There could be a situation when people fail to live up to this idea (and perhaps not respect others or even disrespect others). And when this happens exaggeration of these failures (Disrespect) forms the basis of successful comedies.

The conclusion (C) will break if there's a scenario where people don't fail to live up to their values/ideals. i.e, They always live up to their ideals. In such a case, the aftermath (stated in (2)) wouldn't happen.

D says that people may fail in this respect.

Great question.

(B) Only comedians who display blatant disrespect in their acts are currently successful.
The conclusion of the argument is that the comedians WHO DISPLAY DISRESPECT IN THEIR ACTS are currently successful and this is hardly surprising (my paraphrase). It does not matter whether THESE comedians are the only successful comedians. (B) is incorrect.

(D) People who value an ideal especially highly do not always succeed in living up to this ideal.
The argument says "WHEN people fail to live up to the very ideals they hold in highest esteem, exaggeration of such failings often forms the basis of successful comedy" while CONCLUDING on the CURRENT (i.e.factual) popularity of comedians who display disrespect in their acts: "Thus, the current popularity of comedians who display disrespect in their acts is hardly surprising." We need an assumption that connects the condition and the fact above. (D) assumes that the condition "WHEN people FAIL to live up to the very ideals..." is ACTUALLY satisfied. If we negate (D), it becomes: "People who value an ideal especially highly ALWAYS succeed in living up to this ideal.". This means that the condition "WHEN people FAIL to live up to the very ideals..." is not satisfied and therefore break the conclusion on the current popularity/success of comedians who display disrespect in their acts. (D) is therefore correct.

This is surely a tough question and believe me I didn't get it on the first try either. I think a running clock puts a bit of pressure and makes you do weird things.

Anyway, coming to the question:

A summary of the argument:
A. ppl value respect but many (i.e at least 50%) comedians -> disrespect
B. (people w/ failed ideals) -> comedy through exaggeration of that failure
C. Conc: This is why increase popularity of disrespectful comedians

Now if we just logically make our way through the options, it doesn't seem very complicated. Keep in mind the assumption has to be true:
A: this assumption negates the argument, if they don't value respect then exaggeration of failure in respect shouldn't be funny
B: I got tripped up by this one, the mistake here is the argument itself says "Many" are disrespectful -> some are successful and respectful. Definitely wrong.
C: No they don't, because if they did disrespectful comedians wouldn't be popular.
D: Absolutely right choice, because the argument says if people fail in keeping this ideal they'll find it funny upon exaggeration. This means the number of these people is high.
E: Trap answer: No comparisons made to what this number was in the past.

Critic: People today place an especially high value on respect for others; yet, in their comedy acts, many of today’s most popular comedians display blatant disrespect for others. But when people fail to live up to the very ideals they hold in highest esteem, exaggeration of such failings often forms the basis of successful comedy. Thus the current popularity of comedians who display disrespect in their acts is hardly surprising.

The critic’s argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?

Type: Argument
Conclusion: the popularity of comedy involving disrespect is obvious.
Premise: exaggeration of failings forms the basis of such comedy.
Answer: (D) People who value an ideal especially highly do not always succeed in living up to this ideal.

Why: If people with high ideals always succeeded in living up to them, they wouldn’t be resonated with failings.