Self-study
The Japanese . █████ ██ ███████ ██ █ ████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ███████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ████████████ ████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████ █ ████████ ███████ █ ██████ ████ ████████████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ████████
Argument Structure
The stimulus begins by providing a definition for Japanese haiku, based on the syllable counts of each of the three lines. The author then notes that English poets usually ignore this definition, and define a haiku as a three-line poem that feels like a haiku.
Based on this observation, the author concludes that "English poets have little respect for foreign traditions," even when some of their own poetry is derived from those traditions.
Notable Flaws
The author provides one very specific example — the fact that English poets ignore the definition of a Japanese haiku — and concludes from this that English poets have "little respect" for foreign traditions in general. The author doesn't consider alternative reasons for why English poets might not follow the Japanese definition of haiku — perhaps syllable-based poetry doesn't work as well in English as in Japanese, for instance. In any case, while this example might suggest that English poets have little respect for foreign traditions, it is too specific to demonstrate such a general statement, as the author claims.
21.
The reasoning is flawed because ██
a
confuses matters of █████████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███████
This answer choice is tricky, because the stimulus does deal with "objective" and "subjective" things. This answer choice might actually work as a criticism of the English poets, who have substituted an objective definition of haiku with a subjective one.
But the author of the stimulus doesn't make such a confusion: there's nowhere in the stimulus where the author misunderstands something "objective" as in fact "subjective." So though this answer choice uses terms that might seem related to the stimulus, it isn't descriptively accurate.
b
draws a conclusion ████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████
This is correct. The author claims a single example — English poets' treatment of haiku — demonstrates something about English poets' attitude toward "foreign traditions" in general, without even considering that there could be other explanations for that particular example. So the conclusion is much broader than warranted by the evidence provided.
c
relies on stereotypes ███████ ██ ██████████ ████████
Incorrect. The author doesn't rely on "stereotypes," and the argument does present specific, if limited, evidence: the specific definition of Japanese haiku, and how English poets approach haiku.
d
overlooks the possibility ████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████
Incorrect. If anything, the flaw is actually the opposite problem: the author overlooks the possibility that the case cited is unique, that there could be an alternative explanation for the haiku example rather than a general lack of respect for foreign traditions.
e
fails to acknowledge ████ ████████ █████████ ███████ █ ████████ ████████ █████ ████ █████
Incorrect. This answer choice suggests that by ignoring the Japanese definition of haiku, the English poets are drawing a negative judgment about haiku. That's not suggested by the author's argument, but if it were true, it wouldn't undermine the author's argument. This is a possibility consistent with the author's conclusion that English poets don't respect foreign traditions, not a potential weakness in the argument