In his New York Times blog in August, 2006, Douglas Coupland

Question

In his New York Times blog in August, 2006, Douglas Coupland lamented the state of Canadian literature as, essentially, a literature in which old biddies talk about their small lives in small towns. Canadian literature is a category, he makes clear, in which he does not fit.

Yet if Coupland and his compatriots do not recognize their place in Canadian literature, Coupland does recognize himself as a Canadian writer who is intent on investigating, as well as helping to create, the culture of his country through his art. Dedicating his book Souvenir of Canada to his father, a more Canadian man is hard to imagine, Coupland adds, and to follow in his footsteps is the deepest of honors. Coupland has created numerous pieces that explicitly give language to the Canadian experience. In the category of nonfiction, Souvenir of Canada and Souvenir of Canada 2 are coffee-table books that use images of daily Canadian life to speak about and to Canadians. City of Glass performs this role for Vancouverites specifically. Terry: Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope tells a story that is close to the hearts of most Canadians. And finally, Souvenir of Canada, the documentary, draws viewers into the world of Canadiana and that of the author/filmmaker, therefore defining Coupland himself as the quintessential Canadian. In fiction, Coupland takes a slightly different approach.

Instead of Canadian literature, Coupland perhaps considers his place among the writers of American literature a more adventurous bunch, presumably. Certainly, American critics have accepted him in their fold. In Hybrid Fictions, one of the few in-depth analyses of Coupland’s work, for example, Daniel Grassian positions Coupland as an American writer of serious American fiction, to be classed among the American writers David Foster Wallace, Richard Powers, Neal Stephenson, William Vollmann, Sherman Alexie, Michele Serros, and Dave Eggers, all of whom, like the American Modernists before them, are not being sufficiently studied in their own time, according to Grassian. Grassian does admit that Coupland is Canadian (Canadian by birth, he adds in parentheses in the first of three such confessions), but he insists that despite this geographical aberration, Coupland’s writing, even when it is based in Canada, appears almost indistinguishable from American fiction.    1 
 1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. compare Coupland’s writing to that of other Canadian authors
B. investigate whether it is accurate to classify Coupland’s fiction as American literature
C. argue that Coupland, unlike his Canadian contemporaries, deserves to be studied like his American peers
D. discuss the merits of representing one’s country through one’s art
E. provide evidence supporting the opinion that Coupland’s work can be classified as Canadian

2 
 2. The passage implies that which of the following statements is true?

Indicate  all  that apply.

I. Canadian literature, despite its unique character, is inferior to American literature.
II. An artist’s dismissal of his nationality is not sufficient reason to omit mention of it from criticism of his work.
III. Coupland’s writing, due to its artistic merit, deserves further study.

A. I only
B. II only
C. I and II only
D. I and III only
E. I, II, and III

3 
 3. Which of the following statements about Douglas Coupland is supported by the passage?

I. Had Coupland been born in the United States, his work would have received more critical acclaim.
II. Coupland’s work has not received the scholarly analyses that its breadth and value indicate.
III. Coupland’s claim that his work should not be classified as Canadian is belied by the content of his work.

A. I only
B. I and II only
C. III only
D. I and III only
E. I, II, and III

Jayce12 · Answer

I got 2/3 of these right but here I go explaining the answers:

1. The article seems to be critiquing Coupland's claim that he does not fit in as Canadian literature, though being born in Canada and having an impact on Canadian literature
.
A: No comparison with other literature writings in the passage.
B: This is where I fell for the trap. This is a possible answer, however, this passage does not investigate Coupland's literature works, but rather himself as a writer as an American literature writer
C: Nothing about deserving to being studied like his American peers. Only claims that " like  the American Modernists before them, are not being sufficiently studied in their own time, according to Grassian" in the second paragraph. 
D: The merit to represent one's country is not the main focus, only to support claims.

Hence, the answer is E

2. Option 1 is not true even though Douglas has lamented on Canadian literature in the first paragraph, it is still not a fact. Hence we can get rid of all options except B. Therefore, the answer is B.
 
3. Similar to the strategy with question 2, Option 1 is not true. There is no fact about Coupland's work being more well received if it were in America. It only states that American literature writers "do accept him into the fold", but does not mention about his work being received by anyone more than it is now by considering himself an American literature writer. Hence, we can cross out all the options except C. Therefore the answer is C.

kitkat4620 · Answer

"are not being sufficiently studied in their own time"

For Q3, does it not mean that -> Coupland’s work has not received the scholarly analyses that its breadth and value indicate.??
Where does Coupland claim : III. Coupland’s claim that his work should not be classified as Canadian is belied by the content of his work.

He says he has no place in Canada, but we cant say that h is work should not be classified as Canadian is his claim?

guddo · Answer

3. Which of the following statements about Douglas Coupland is supported by the passage?

I. Had Coupland been born in the United States, his work would have received more critical acclaim.
II. Coupland’s work has not received the scholarly analyses that its breadth and value indicate.
III. Coupland’s claim that his work should not be classified as Canadian is belied by the content of his work.

A. I only
B. I and II only
C. III only
D. I and III only
E. I, II, and III

The passage says Coupland claims he does not fit “Canadian literature,” but his nonfiction especially is deeply focused on Canadian life and identity. It also says American critics have embraced him, and one critic (Grassian) classifies him with certain American writers.

I. Had Coupland been born in the United States, his work would have received more critical acclaim.

Not supported. The passage says American critics have accepted him, but it never says he would have received more acclaim if he had been born in the US. There is no comparison of acclaim levels based on birthplace.

II. Coupland’s work has not received the scholarly analyses that its breadth and value indicate.

Not supported. The passage says Hybrid Fictions is “one of the few in-depth analyses” of his work, but it does not go further and claim that the lack of analysis is unjustified given his breadth and value. Also, the “not being sufficiently studied in their own time” comment is attributed to Grassian about the American writers he lists, and it is not clearly applied to Coupland himself.

III. Coupland’s claim that his work should not be classified as Canadian is belied by the content of his work.

Supported. Coupland says he does not fit Canadian literature, but the passage gives multiple examples of his works explicitly focused on Canadian life and identity and even calls him the “quintessential Canadian,” which conflicts with his claim.

Answer: (C)

guddo · Answer

On II: I’d say no. The line “are not being sufficiently studied in their own time” grammatically modifies the list of American writers Grassian names, not Coupland. And even if it did include Coupland, it would only say  not sufficiently studied , not that the amount of study fails to match his “breadth and value.”  That extra “breadth and value indicate” claim is not in the passage.
 
On III: Coupland’s “claim” is in the first paragraph: he makes clear that “Canadian literature is a category in which he does not fit.” That is essentially him saying his work should not be classified as Canadian literature. The rest of the passage then describes him as deeply Canadian in content, even “quintessential Canadian,” so it  belies  that claim.

ReetArora · Answer

How is Option E answer to question 1, entire passage aims to classify DC being American culture rather than Canadian culture. 
Please explain.

guddo · Answer

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

The passage contrasts Coupland’s rejection of “Canadian literature” as a category with the fact that he strongly identifies as a Canadian writer and has produced many works explicitly centered on Canadian culture. It then notes that critics, especially in the U.S., often place him among American writers and even describe his fiction as nearly indistinguishable from American fiction.

(A) compare Coupland’s writing to that of other Canadian authors

No. The passage mentions a stereotype of Canadian literature, but it does not actually compare Coupland’s writing to specific Canadian authors.

(B) investigate whether it is accurate to classify Coupland’s fiction as American literature

This is close, but the passage spends a lot of space establishing Coupland’s Canadian cultural project, then reports that American critics classify his fiction as American. It does not really “investigate” accuracy in a balanced way; it mainly sets up a tension.

(C) argue that Coupland, unlike his Canadian contemporaries, deserves to be studied like his American peers

The passage reports Grassian’s claim that certain American writers are not studied enough, but it does not argue Coupland deserves study because of that, and it does not build a case against Canadian contemporaries.

(D) discuss the merits of representing one’s country through one’s art

Too broad. The passage uses Coupland as a case, not as a general argument about the merits of national representation in art.

(E) provide evidence supporting the opinion that Coupland’s work can be classified as Canadian

This best matches what the passage actually does: it lists multiple nonfiction works that “give language to the Canadian experience,” frames him as “quintessential Canadian,” and emphasizes his intent to create Canadian culture through art. The final paragraph introduces the counter-label (American), but mainly as contrast to that Canadian evidence.  So the passage’s main function is to build the case for his Canadianness while noting the competing classification.

Answer: (E)

K812 · Answer

While this does make sense- I am still not convinced with E as the answer choice (I don't think any answer choice does justice to the actual main point).

I think E summarizes the second paragraph quite well. But I don't think it conveys the main point really- the author first sets up the narrative that Coupland has thought of himself- not recognising his place in Canadian literature. Then, he goes on to provide a lot of evidence as to how his non fiction writing actually resembles of a quintessential Canadian, which he would agree with too considering "Coupland does recognize himself as a Canadian writer who is intent on investigating, as well as helping to create, the culture of his country through his art."

Then, the author goes on to show a contrasting view of his writing, fiction, specifically by the American critics.

So, overall the passage explores how his different writings resembles with different literatures without really picking a specific stance.

While option (E) shows a very partial stance of the author by showing him to support Coupland's work to be viewed as Canadian.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

K812  let me try to help,

Para 1 introduces Douglas and his opinion.
Para 2 The author talks about Douglas's work to establish whether it is Canadian or not
Para 3: The author presented  Daniel Grassian's critique as an example to show Douglas was accepted as american but Daniel also presents in the last line, "Grassian does admit that Coupland is Canadian (Canadian by birth, he adds in parentheses in the first of three such confessions)," even though his fiction is similar to American fiction

If we look at the overall why these paragraphs are presented to us, it provides us the evidence to support the opinion that Coupland’s work can be classified as Canadian, even though he doesn't recognize his place in Canadian literature, but he does consider himself as canadian writer. SO in my opinion, E does fit among all the given options

In his New York Times blog in August, 2006, Douglas Coupland

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

In his New York Times blog in August, 2006, Douglas Coupland

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards