Raj30 wrote:
Can you please explain Q12?
I marked D considering musicologist example
Question #12 (or #4, as it now appears) asks which answer choice the author is LEAST likely to believe. So to eliminate an answer choice, we need to show that the author WOULD likely believe the given statement.
Let's take a look at (D):
Quote:
(D) Intellectual authority sometimes challenges institutional beliefs; institutional authority never does.
In the second paragraph of the passage, the author states that "the reasonable argument that goes unrecognized in its own time because it challenges institutional beliefs is common in intellectual history." From this, we know that the author would clearly agree with the first part of the statement, that "intellectual authority sometimes challenges institutional beliefs."
Now, for the second piece of the statement: " institutional authority never does." This can be rewritten as "institutional authority never challenges institutional authority." So, would the author believe this statement?
The key to answering this question is in the last paragraph. Here, the author says that using precedent to decide a legal case is "a pure example of institutional authority." S/he goes on to say that "when a judicial decision is badly reasoned, or simply no longer applies in the face of evolving social standards or practices, the notion of
intellectual authority is introduced: judges reconsider, revise, or in some cases throw out in the reconsideration of decisions, leading one to draw the conclusion that legal systems contain a significant degree of intellectual authority."
So, when institutional authority is challenged, that challenge is categorized as intellectual authority. Therefore, institutional authority never challenges institutional authority. The author would likely believe statement (D), so it can be eliminated.
If you haven't gone cross-eyed yet, let's go on to answer choice (B):
Quote:
(B) Intellectual authority may accept well-reasoned arguments; institutional authority never does.
Again, let's consider each piece of this answer choice separately:
In the first sentence of the passage, the author states that "Intellectual authority is defined as the authority of arguments that prevail by virtue of good reasoning." From this, we can conclude that the author would believe the first part of answer choice (B), that "Intellectual authority may accept well-reasoned arguments."
Now, on to the second part: "institutional authority never does [accept well-reasoned arguments]."
Hmm. In the second sentence of the passage, the author states that "institutional authority refers to the power of social institutions to enforce acceptance of arguments that
may or may not possess intellectual authority." So, institutional authority
may or may not accept arguments that prevail by virtue of good reasoning.
From this, it is clear that the author would not believe that institutional authority
never accepts well-reasoned arguments. For this reason, (B) is the correct answer.
I hope that helps!
"Intellectual authority is defined as the authority of arguments that prevail by virtue of good reasoning and do not depend on coercion or convention"
I thought answer should be either of below choices.
(A) Institutional authority may depend on coercion; intellectual authority never does.
(C)Institutional authority may depend on convention; intellectual authority never does.
1st part seem true but no possible explanation found in 2nd part.