Posthumous publication of works is often problematic since the writer

Hi

Can someone please explain the deciding factor here? I was confused between B and C.

Why not OPTION D please explain how option C as answer

Posted from my mobile device

PH works are a problem .
Why? Writer is not available to attest to facts. Meaning writer can’t confirm certain facts.
Solution proposed: Writers should date the manuscripts and write the version it replaces.
( So the assumption is that while revising the manuscripts writer also keeps revisiting and confirming all the facts and that all the facts are correct).
Remember, this is only an assumption while propping the solution: to tag the manuscripts according to version.
But does this solve the complete problem? May be, May be not? Hence the scope is the issue here.
Agree?

Posted from my mobile device

Please refer attached images for the official explanation.

Sorry for the inconvenience, While posting from the mobile I had to try several times because of uploading error.

i also thought the same flaw but could not connect with the given correct option C. latest is not equal to last

Thelionking1234

Can you pls explain me the following concern

If the author tells us which earlier version is replaced by the new version in question, don't we automatically know that the last available (in a series of drafts) new draft which has replaced a particular draft is the final one

I'm unable to get the flaw

Thanks in advance!

because a dead author may not tell his latest version and editorial could not find the latest to publish, therefore the last is not the latest. I hope i make some sense.

Is the flaw saying that latest version couldn't be found and consequently a previous is considered latest, doesn't mean it can't be possible

Yes what you said is correct. If writer writes the date and the version number of the manuscripts then it is easy to arrange the manuscripts in chronological order and we can find the recent manuscript easily.

But the flaw in the reasoning is:

Conclusion of the author: Therefore, to eliminate the problem, writers should not only date their scripts but also specify which previous version the new script replaces.


Author says buy applying his suggestions problem of finding the latest manuscripts will be solved.

Now refer attached image to understand the flaw.

Let me know If you still have some reservations.

I suggest applying this 4-step process to tackle the problem:

Step 1 - Read carefully the Question Statement (to focus your reading)

Question statement : "The editor’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it"

This kind of question tests our ability to analyze the logical structure of an argument and identify its flaws.
Notice that we are not asked to weaken the conclusion but rather to identify flaws in the argument as a whole.

Step 2 - Understand the argument and its Logical Construction (visualization)

We can summarize the arguments as follows :

a) Problem in attesting facts (because author not present). (Fact 1)
b) Problem arising when draft version not dated, making the editor's job difficult. (Fact 2)
c) TO ELIMINATE the problem, authors should be asked to date scripts and provide references to previous versions (conclusion)

The assumption on which the argument is based is that : Dating / versioning will ELIMINATE the problem. Note that "eliminates" means "solving 100% of the problem".

There is another important point to notice when reading the passage. It is the definition of the problem. In the first sentence, we are told about a problem of "Attesting facts". And in the following sentences, that problem is reduced to "Absence of date / versioning in drafts".

Basically what the argument tells us is that : "the solution to a portion of the problem (date / versioning) will ELIMINATE the whole problem (attesting facts)".

Step 3 – Pre-thinking

Based on our analysis of the structure of the argument, we can say that the most important criticism to this argument lies in the reduction of the scope of the problem : We went from a broad problem (attesting facts) to a limited problem (dating manuscrits).

Step 4 - Process of Elimination

After a quick POE, Answer Choices A and D can be eliminated without any hesitation.

Other Answer choices require more scrutiny before elimination.

Answer B - Tries to address the symptoms rather than the actual cause of the problem.

This Answer choice is meant to make you think and waste precious time. In fact, the recommendation made in the passage (i.e dating the manuscripts) addresses the cause of a problem and not the manifestation of that cause (symptom). For this reason it is out.

Answer C - does not fully consider the scope of the problem.

Answer Choice in conformity with our pre-thinking. In fact, the problem the editors face is much broader than versioning / dating of drafts. In fact, it is possible to have a dated draft but that is still a DRAFT (and not an accurate and definitive description of the facts the author wanted to convey). Therefore, C is the correct Choice .

Answer E - Solution irrelevant to the problem

It is true that the recommendation made in the passage doesn't address the broader problem of "Attesting facts" however it is relevant in addressing the versioning issue (part of the problem). Therefore, it is PARTIALLY relevant.

For this reason E is out.

Nothing about the correctness of writing down the date and the version number is written. In this question, we are assuming that the author has written down all the dates and the version number correctly.

If suppose we assume that the date and the version number written by the author is not correct, then we can assume that option (D) to be the answer, which says that his suggestion can lead to another issue.

Kindly please clarity this for me? @e-gmat

This is the most plausible explanation to this question.
I found it difficult to wrap my head around the 'version 4' idea, in which there exists a version 4 but the editor is aware of only up to version 3 and is not aware that a version 4 exists. But then, that may be a problem just for me.
The undermentioned explanation clears all my doubts. Thanks a lot.