Self-study
Muriel: I admire Favilla's novels, but Conclusion she does not deserve to be considered a great writer. ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ███████
█████ █ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ █ █████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████████ █ █████ ██████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ █ ██████████ █████ ███████
Speaker 1 Summary
Muriel concludes that Favilla isn’t a great writer. This is because Favilla’s subject matter isn’t varied enough.
Speaker 2 Summary
John asserts that having varied subject matter isn’t a requirement for being a great writer. He proposes a different requirement - the ability to explore a particular theme deeply. John’s implicit point is that we can’t conclude that Favilla is not a great writer even if her subject matter isn’t varied.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether great writers must write about subject matter with enough variety.
4.
John's statements commit him to █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████
a
Even if the ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ██████████ █ █████ ███████
This follows from John's first claim. John states that a great writer does not need diversity in subject matter. So even if Favilla's subject matter isn't particularly varied, that fact alone cannot be used to exclude her from being considered a great writer.
b
Even if Favilla ██████ ███████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ██████████ █ █████ ███████
This contradicts John's second claim. John says a great writer must have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply. If Favilla can't explore any theme deeply, she fails to meet John's necessary condition, and John would say she doesn't deserve to be considered a great writer.
c
If Favilla has ████████ ████ ██████████ █████ █████████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ██████████ █ █████ ███████
John says the ability to explore a theme deeply is necessary for being a great writer, but he never says it's sufficient. Even if Favilla can explore a theme deeply, John might require additional qualities before declaring someone a great writer.
d
If the subject ██████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████ █████████████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ██████████ █ █████ ███████
John says varied subject matter isn't required for greatness, but that doesn't mean having varied subject matter prevents greatness. John's claim is that lack of variety can't disqualify you; he never suggests that having variety can disqualify you. There's nothing in John's statements that would commit him to saying Favilla wouldn't deserve greatness if her subject matter were varied.
e
If Favilla's writings ████ ██ ████████ ██ █ ███████████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ██████████ █ █████ ███████
John never mentions distinctive style. Although Muriel brings up Favilla's distinctive style, John's own criteria involve subject matter diversity (which he rejects as a requirement) and exploring themes deeply (which he endorses as a requirement). Having a distinctive style is simply not part of John's framework, so he isn't committed to any position about whether lacking one should disqualify a writer from greatness.