mkeshri185
Structuralism, Feminism, and Marxism—contemporary trends in literary criticism that sought to debunk the tenets of previous and competing theories.
It is said directly here that Marxism(along with others) sought to debunk the previous theories. Then why can't be B the correct answer? If we are discarding something then we can't discard on the fly that ohh this looks bad so discard it. We need to evaluate it first and that's what B says mkeshri185 you're right that "debunking" does require some form of examination.
However, there's a crucial difference here. The passage states that Marxism "sought to debunk the tenets of previous and competing theories" - but
debunking (overthrowing, disproving) is not the same as
evaluating for usefulness.
- Evaluating for usefulness = Assessing the value or merit of something
- Debunking = Attempting to prove something wrong or discredit it
The passage describes Marxism as attempting to
overthrow previous theories, not as being a useful
tool for evaluating them.
What the Author Actually SuggestsMore importantly, the question asks what the author
SUGGESTS about Marxist views, not just what is stated as historical fact.
The author's main argument throughout the passage is that
ALL literary criticism - including Marxism - is actually a form of Reader-Response criticism.
Look at paragraph \(3\): "Feminist and Marxist criticism lay great importance on the differences among various readers...those of socioeconomic status in the latter."
Here, the author demonstrates that Marxism considers how readers of different socioeconomic backgrounds respond to texts. This shows that Marxism exemplifies Reader-Response criticism → Answer
(C).
Answer (B) misses the author's main argument entirely. The author isn't suggesting Marxism is useful for evaluating other schools - the author is arguing that Marxism itself
is a form of Reader-Response criticism.
Does that clarify your doubt?