Some theorists argue that literary critics should strive to be value-neutral in their literary criticism. These theorists maintain that by exposing the meaning of literary works without evaluating them, critics will enable readers to make their own judgments about the works' merits. But literary criticism cannot be completely value-neutral. Thus, some theorists are mistaken about what is an appropriate goal for literary criticism.
The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
(A)
Any critic who is able to help readers make their own judgments about literary works' merits should strive to produce value-neutral criticism.
(B)
If it is impossible to produce completely value-neutral literary criticism, then critics should not even try to be value-neutral.
(C) Critics are more likely to provide criticisms of the
works they like than to provide criticisms of the
works they dislike.
(D) The
less readers understand the meaning of a literary work, the l
ess capable they will be of evaluating that work's merits.
(E)
Critics who try to avoid rendering value judgments about the works they consider tend to influence readers' judgments less than other critics do.
My post would not hold much value as fellow GC members have explained nicely.
It was between B and E for me. For a moment I stopped at D also.
So, this is how someone may approach the choices after proper understanding the passage.
A is rejected, not straight off, for the reason that why only some(any) critic - why modify the scope of number of critics i.e. why limit the scope of critics.
C is rejected easily for the reason that likes/dislikes don't matter.
D is typical trap answer as it gives a real world context which we should never fall for, but, unfortunately, we do.
Out of the remaining B and E, test takers are more likely eliminate B for its straight-forwarded-ness. Also, E on the other hand gives a strong reason on the influencing part.
However, it has flaws/traps that i fell for. One, that theorists and authors argument which is beautifully explained by
Akela above. Two, that why limit critics by using the word 'who try' just like A did. If this doesn't helps the third flaw can be that why comparing critics who try avoiding to who don't.
I found B wrong for all the wrong reasons. But the passage is itself like that when it uses 'should' in conclusion. It does point towards some conditional which is what B does.
Answer B.