Hey yall,
Since my ask a tutor button isn’t working, I thought I’d ask for help here. For this question, I thought the unstated premise was: tragedies and comedies major characters have moral qualities that do not reflect the worlds they are in (the logical negation of the classification of romance and satires, which is the moral qualities of major characters do reflect the worlds they are in) . But the correct answer choice, D states the moral qualities of major characters in tragedy’s and comedy’s do not change throughout the action ( the negation of the classification for tragedies and comedies)
Why is the unstated premise here AC D, the negation of the classification for tragedies and comedies rather than the unstated premise I had predicted?
I know this is a SA q btw, I’m trying to push myself to find the gap by thinking what the unstated premises are
4 comments
@lagata Regarding the Ask a Tutor button not working, it looks like the Ask a Tutor form doesn't currently pop up in our 7Sage iOS app, though it works properly in browsers. For now, please try accessing 7Sage through your browser (Safari, Chrome, etc.) when submitting a question via the Ask a Tutor button.
If you'd like to use Safari on your iPhone, please also make sure your pop-up blocker is toggled off:
Open the Settings app on your iPhone.
Scroll down and tap Safari (on newer iOS versions, this may be under Settings > Apps > Safari).
Under the General section, find Block Pop-ups and toggle it off.
Please let us know if you run into any trouble!
@Mary very helpful, thank you!
Here's my take on the question. I worked through it like this:
(it's all about literature)
idealized world in romance =/= debased satire (let's say the romance books make the world seem super sunshine and rainbows, and the satire books make the world seem like we're living in a super wicked one)
BUT overlap in moral qualities that reflect those worlds in their characters
(so characters in romance books are also sunshine and rainbows and positive and idealized/ in satire books, satire characters are super mean and cheat others and are wicked)
that's romance and satire.
now we're going into comedy and tragedy.
in those stories, the moral qualities of the characters have to change over the book.
(we don't know anything about whether these qualities are reflective of their worlds or not. Just that they have moral qualities, and that they change)
(so a super positive character might turn into a really wicked one, or a bad guy will turn into a good one like Zuko or Snape or something)
We don't know why the condition "moral qualities have to change" triggers that it can't be a romance or satire yet. We know these characters in those books have moral qualities that reflect the worlds, but if the conclusion is to follow, then we know that something about that triggers why something won't be romance or satire.
a doesn't do that. it just tells us more about the moral qualities within tragedies and comedies. This is saying, hey some of these characters in C/T aren't debased/idealized (like R/S). But that still doesn't tell us why a change makes it so that C/T can't be R/S.
b doesn't do that either. we don't really need to know about the world, because we don't know about whether the moral qualities also are reflective of the world in C/T, but we also don't know why change would make it not R/S,
c just follows the rule of change. Doesn't explain why the change makes it so it's not R/S.
D--> bingo. If this were true, it answers our question of why changes in moral qualities would make something not R/S.
e says that both c/t require change in minor characters--> great we already know that. It follows the premise. We don't know why that premise will make something so it's not R/S.
I'd be curious to see where you thought the moral qualities of characters are also reflective of the worlds in comedy and satire. I think we only get that about the romance. I think the jump you're making is that, okay, if C/T can't be R/S, then what we get about R/S must be false about C/T. But we don't know that to be true.
It could be.
But that ignores the thing that we know that triggers why C/T can't be R/S. The argument is saying, "Look, these guys change! So they can't be R/S." We want to know why the change disqualifies C/T from R/s, not where the moral qualities come from themselves or why those changes happen--we need a comparison. It sounds like you might have picked b, but maybe think about if B actually does anything to the argument. Does it sway the conclusion in one way or another? Does it make me see why the conclusion is the conclusion? It doesn't have to be the only way to get the conclusion overall, but I think compared to the other answers, the AC will always make sure the conclusion is the explanation vs anything else. I think that's a helpful test to use for these kinds of questions! Hope it helps!
@new_cheese very helpful, thank you! You are right, I did chose B at first then chose D during blind review. Reviewing this question deeply helped :)