PT4.S4.Q16 - conchetta: franchot was a great writer

Seriousbird

This is a method of reasoning questions.

If someone can explain to me why B and D are incorrect and C is correct I would really appreciate it. This is my reasoning:

A) A does not accept C's criterion, she says concepts were widely understood.
She does discredit C's evidence by saying that the concept was widely understood in Franchot's time, so she was not ahead of her time. I guess this is wrong bc she does not generalize from new evidence, but couldn't one say she is generalizing by stating what the stipulations for a great writer are? I guess you could mark this as wrong because there isn't any new evidence other than her claim that social consequences were widely understood (but we do not know that this is new evidence, correct?)
C) This seems correct because A rejects C's criterion for what makes a great writer and disputes the specific claim that F was a great writer.
D) She does dispute C's conclusion. She says F was not a great writer and she does present facts for the same criterion (what makes a great writer), it is alternative in the sense that it has different requirements.
E) A does not attack one of C's claims, she simply disagrees with it. She does not criticize the structure of C's argument.

So if someone could go over B and D with me, I would be incredibly grateful. Also, if you could look at my reasoning and see if it is ok, I would be incredibly appreciative.

Thank you in advance!!

Accounts Playable

Answer B is wrong because there is no new evidence, and there is no generalization. A isn't creating a generalization about what makes a good writer; A already has her definition set in stone. A does discredit C's evidence in two ways: C's criterion isn't what makes a good writer, and even if it was, F wasn't ahead of her time since people understood that issue already.

Answer C is great. A directly rejects C's criterion (first to grasp a social issue; C thinks this is what makes a great writer but A doesn't think that). Then, A disputes the actual truth of that claim: people already understood the social issue, so F really wasn't the first to grasp it.

Answer Yes, there is a direct dispute over the conclusion (F is a great writer vs. F isn't a great writer), but A doesn't present any facts that defend her criterion for great writing. A just gives us her opinion on what she think makes a good writer. She doesn't use any supporting premises to argue for her opinion. She's just disputing C's opinion and facts.

I think everything else in your analysis is great. The key to getting these questions correct is to push back the abstraction. Take what B, C, and D and align it to what's stated in the passage; if you can't do that for an answer choice or if you have to stretch it to get it to work, that answer choice is probably wrong. Answer C is the only answer choice that we can link up everything back the passage.