Subscription pricing
Literature professor: Critics charge that the work of C. F. Providence's best-known follower, S. N. Sauk, lacks aesthetic merit because it employs Providence's own uniquely potent system of symbolic motifs in the service of a political ideal that Providence—and, significantly, some of these critics as well—would reject. ████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ █████████ █████ ████ █████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ██ █████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Critics argue that Sauk’s work doesn’t have aesthetic merit, because it uses certain symbolic motifs of an artist that Sauk followed, but to further a political ideal that that artist would disagree with. The author rejects the critics argument, because the critics haven’t shown that the use of the same symbolic motifs for a purpose that the artist would reject would decrease aesthetic merit of Sauk’s work.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author criticizes the critics’ argument by pointing out that the critics’ premise, even if it’s true, doesn’t provide any support to the critics’ conclusion. The fact Sauk uses the same symbolic motifs hasn’t been shown to affect the aesthetic merit of Sauk’s work.
11.
The literature professor argues that ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████
a
the claims made ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████████
b
Sauk's work has █████████ █████
c
these critics are █████████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██████ █████████ █████
d
the claims made ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███████
e
the claims made ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ██