Critic: It is common to argue that there is a distinction betw

I was surprised looking at the difficulty level of this question. Not sure whether my approach was correct or not, but below is how I tackled the questions.

Look at the last line in the argument but because no work should be. When we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact.. Given we have both premise and conclusion indicator, the first phrase that follows "No work should be" is a conclusion - attached with conclusion indicator and second clause is a premise. Hence B is straight answer

Help please! need explanation for the answer

hi!!
why not C? can anyone please guide..

A) It states the conclusion. No, the conclusion is “But this is a specious distinction-not because every work should be interpreted, but because no work should be. ”

(B) It is offered as support for the conclusion. Yes.. it’s a premise supporting the conclusion

(C) It attempts to spell out the practical implications of the critic's conclusion. .... nope.. the conclusion is that no work should be interpreted. So the boldface is actually an implication if one interprets the work....

(D) It attempts to explain the nature of the distinction that the critic considers. No

(E) It attempts to anticipate an objection to the critic's conclusion. No

when we say the conclusion is "But this is a specious distinction-not because every work should be interpreted, but because no work should be". any other fact that is mentioned in the above passage would be something that offers support to the conclusion.(option B).
if there is line (bold) that the conclusion leads to wouldn't that be the new conclusion ? hence I think option "C" is wrong.

Hi Why cant it be D? Please give expalanation

Posted from my mobile device

vijayram2496, simply because the statement does not even talk about distinction. Why do you think it should be D? Happy to discuss this further!

hello expert,
Same as some comrades asked above, I don't know how to eliminate C, as B and C are almost the same meaning to me.
Hope an expert help to explain, and thanks in advance.

GMATNinja Much thx for your input expert, but I think I might not understand well what you said. You said "the BF actually talks about what would happen if we DIDN'T go along with the conclusion", but I can't understand what "emotional impact" has something to do with "interpreted". Mind to explain further?

please explain me all the options.... giving brief reason why cant they be chosen

Hello Team,
Please help why can't it be option d?

Is the author not elaborating the specious distinction?

The connection between the "emotional impact" of a work and "interpreting" that work is at the heart of the author's logic. The idea, according to the passage, is that if we start to interpret a work, we will "cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact." So, we should NOT interpret a work. Because if we DO interpret a work, we "cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact."

I hope that helps!

Critic: It is common to argue that there is a distinction between "literary" and "genre" fiction. The first should be interpreted, so this argument goes, while the second is merely a source of easy pleasure. But this is a specious distinction-not because every work should be interpreted, but because no work should be. When we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played by the BOLDFACE

(A) It states the conclusion. - WRONG. Conclusion is " 'literary' should be interpreted, while 'genre' is merely a source of easy pleasure is a specious distinction because no work should be interpreted".

(B) It is offered as support for the conclusion. - CORRECT,

(C) It attempts to spell out the practical implications of the critic's conclusion. - WRONG. Although this I chose but i had my apprehension choosing this over B, and it was because of "practical implications". What does that mean? No such thing is elaborated in the passage as such. The BOLDFACE is a generic statement made in support to conclusion.

(D) It attempts to explain the nature of the distinction that the critic considers. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(E) It attempts to anticipate an objection to the critic's conclusion. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

Answer B.

If you are stuck between (B) and (C):

If I were to conclude that "making a distinction between literary fiction and genre fiction is specious/dumb", then the practical implication of that conclusion would be "I will no longer make that distinction nor respect it when other people do so."

If I were to conclude that "no work should be interpreted", then the practical implication would be "next time I read a work, I won't try to interpret it ... I'll just let it emotionally impact me however it does."

A 'practical implication', in other words, would be how our behavior or thinking will change as a result of a certain claim being true.

Meanwhile, that last sentence, which you highlighted, is not practical / actionable advice. It's the reason FOR the conclusion that "we shouldn't interpret any work". Why not? Because doing so cuts us off from the work's emotional impact.

If we accept that rationale, and we think staying attuned to emotional impact is so important that we would agree with the conclusion that "no work should be interpreted", then the practical implication would be "stop trying to interpret works".