PT40.S3.Q18 - it has been a staple of drama

Comments

• NYC12345 Alum Inactive Sage

  August 2015 edited August 2015 1654 karma

  @jmac800
  The stimulus does not mention "other societies;" therefore, "A" does not explain the discrepancy. "B" is a great answer choice because it reveals historians' disapproval for the fact that plays exaggerate about how empathetic the society was.
• NYC12345 Alum Inactive Sage

  August 2015 1654 karma

  Moreover, the argument structure implies that the reason for the historians' disapproval is because the play attempts to invoke empathy.
• jmac800 Member

  August 2015 94 karma

  The above is not a bad answer, but I need a more concrete reason. If I had no reason why B was right that would help, but I can see how they are both right.
• NYC12345 Alum Inactive Sage

  August 2015 1654 karma

  @jmac800
  How can "A" possibly be right? The stimulus says nothing about other societies. Furthermore, the argument states, "since the play attempts to invoke empathy, historians do not take the plays seriously."
• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 edited August 2015 2398 karma

  I look at answer choice A from a slightly different perspective:
  
  Just because playwrights look upon their own societies more critically than other societies doesn't mean that they are offering an insincere portrayal of their societies. What if the playwrights for dramatic effect decided to glamorize all other societies other than their own, but offered a nuanced and realistic portrayal of their own society? Then they would be more critical of their own than the others as A says, but there's nothing to say that this means their portrayals shouldn't be taken seriously--especially if they portrayals are realistic.
  
  Contast this with B, though. B gives you a reason why historians wouldn't take the portrayals seriously--they don't know what's true and what's a dramatic fabrication!
  
  A is tempting you because you're making the assumption that a more critical portrayal of their own country implies that they are giving a slanted or less than truthful portrayal, but this need not be the case.
• jmac800 Member

  August 2015 94 karma

  ^Your explanation is fairly good, but what about the weaknesses of a society part, I eliminated B on that grounds, we don't know about the alleged weakness or what it would constitute or how that would play into, I thought, well that means B is out of scope. Because in a war like society maybe hostility can be viewed as good!
• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  August 2015 2398 karma

  If they exaggerated the weaknesses of society how could they be serious revelations about the society?
  
  I really don't understand your response above, but looking back at your original post, you misunderstand the task. You raise the issue that we don't know that they exaggerate the weaknesses as B says, but the question stem asks us "which of the following, if true..." so we are taking the choices to be additional factual information.
• nye8870 Alum ⭐

  August 2015 1749 karma

  I end up asking a few questions after reading this stimulus: What is the viewpoint of the historians? And … why do they feel this way?
  Their viewpoint is “We do not regard these (dramas) as serious revelations of what the societies (presented in these dramas) were really like.” Ok? Why not?
  The stimulus says: “They don’t because the playwrights wished their audience to empathize with the protagonist.” Why does that affect your regarding them as revelations….?
  Because (B) For the sake of dramatic effect, the playwrights –exaggerate- the weakness…blah, blah.”
  I see, so if a play (in this case a drama) exaggerates/distorts reality then it cannot be regarded as any sort of –serious- revelation of …”
  (A) More critical/ less critical does not prevent a play from being regarded as – a serious revelation..
  
• jmac800 Member

  August 2015 94 karma

  Ok thanks guys, that did clarify.