Namangupta1997 wrote:
AnirudhaS wrote:
Namangupta1997 wrote:
Hi
AndrewN How is Literary scholar "supporting the conclusion" ? I do not think by merely saying "reigniting the print sales", he is vociferously supporting the position that the print sales have gone down. He is at most
agreeing and I don't think that is equivalent to "supporting". Maybe I am over-analyzing ?
Sorry to sabotage your question to Andrew. I am sure he will give a better explanation. But while you wait, here is my take on this problem.
What is the conclusion?
that overall interest in reading has steadily declined.Both agree to this conclusion. They do not refute this claim.
The only difference is what explanation they use to support the conclusion.
Internet geek - since everything is available online, therefore reading interest has declined.
Literary scholars - since today's scholars do not produce quality material, therefore reading interest has declined.
Also literary scholar goes a bit further and provides his recommendation - we need more authors like Shakespeare.
This exactly what I want to clarify. Is agreeing equivalent to supporting ?
Hello,
Namangupta1997 and
AniRudhaS. To be upfront, I see the question as flawed, even if I can see what the author may have been driving at. The conclusion provided by the study is that the decline in
the overall sales of print [media] per capita... over the past decade proves that overall interest in reading has steadily declined. Actually, neither the Internet Geek nor the Literary Scholar addresses the point that
overall interest in reading has steadily declined. The Internet Geek simply states that people
read, more or less,
online, a comment that in no way reflects on the conclusion about the overall interest in reading—i.e. can we say
how much information people are reading online versus how much they used to read from print media? No. Thus, the Internet Geek can only be said to speculate on the
premise the study used to draw its own conclusion. (Also, a peccadillo:
an observed phenomena should be
phenomenon, the singular noun.) Meanwhile, the Literary Scholar cannot be said to
[support] the conclusion because that conclusion is based on a claim that invokes proof. I would say that the Literary Scholar addresses the fact that print sales may be down, nothing more. If you can point to anything in the three lines attributed to the Literary Scholar that indicates that a drop in print media sales
proves, once again,
that overall interest in reading has steadily declined, then you either have a keener eye than I do (a possibility I will acknowledge), or you are making an inference that GMAT™-based logic would not allow you to make. How can we infer that just because
today's authors may not be as skilled as Shakespeare, people are not reading the classics, or gossip columns, or online news stories, or borrowing more (free) library books, etc.? I just do not see
support for the conclusion, as written, in the response given by the Literary Scholar.
In short, I would advise you both to move on and study official questions instead. Thank you, nevertheless, for thinking to ask, and thank you,
AniRudhaS, for seeking to help a fellow member.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.