PrepTest 77, Section 2, Question 20
Critic: It is common to argue that there is a distinction between "literary" and "genre" fiction. The first should be interpreted, so this argument goes, while the second is merely a source of easy pleasure. But this is a specious distinction—not because every work should be interpreted, but because no work should be. When we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact.
Critic: It is common to argue that there is a distinction between "literary" and "genre" fiction. The first should be interpreted, so this argument goes, while the second is merely a source of easy pleasure. But this is a specious distinction—not because every work should be interpreted, but because no work should be. When we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact.
Critic: It is common to argue that there is a distinction between "literary" and "genre" fiction. The first should be interpreted, so this argument goes, while the second is merely a source of easy pleasure. But this is a specious distinction—not because every work should be interpreted, but because no work should be. When we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact.
Critic: It is common to argue that there is a distinction between "literary" and "genre" fiction. The first should be interpreted, so this argument goes, while the second is merely a source of easy pleasure. But this is a specious distinction—not because every work should be interpreted, but because no work should be. When we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact.
Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the critic's argument by the claim that when we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact?
It states the conclusion.
It is offered as support for the conclusion.
It attempts to spell out the practical implications of the critic's conclusion.
It attempts to explain the nature of the distinction that the critic considers.
It attempts to anticipate an objection to the critic's conclusion.
0 Comments