PrepTest 94+, Section 4, Question 25
Translator: Dr. Abner, apparently scornful of my translation of an ancient poem on the grounds that it is inaccurate, says that my translation produces in most readers feelings other than those the original text was intended to produce. However, as Dr. Abner should realize, we do not know how people originally responded to the poem or how its author intended them to respond. So Dr. Abner's criticism is unjustified.
Translator: Dr. Abner, apparently scornful of my translation of an ancient poem on the grounds that it is inaccurate, says that my translation produces in most readers feelings other than those the original text was intended to produce. However, as Dr. Abner should realize, we do not know how people originally responded to the poem or how its author intended them to respond. So Dr. Abner's criticism is unjustified.
Translator: Dr. Abner, apparently scornful of my translation of an ancient poem on the grounds that it is inaccurate, says that my translation produces in most readers feelings other than those the original text was intended to produce. However, as Dr. Abner should realize, we do not know how people originally responded to the poem or how its author intended them to respond. So Dr. Abner's criticism is unjustified.
Translator: Dr. Abner, apparently scornful of my translation of an ancient poem on the grounds that it is inaccurate, says that my translation produces in most readers feelings other than those the original text was intended to produce. However, as Dr. Abner should realize, we do not know how people originally responded to the poem or how its author intended them to respond. So Dr. Abner's criticism is unjustified.
The translator's argument is flawed in that it
fails to adequately address the possibility that the original poem had more than one author
draws a conclusion purely on the basis of an appeal to popular opinion
fails to adequately address the possibility that the original text was not intended to produce any particular feelings in the reader
rejects an argument merely because of the circumstances of the person who offered it
concludes that we cannot know that certain effects were not what the author intended merely because we do not know what specific effects the author did intend
Explanations
The translator argues that Dr. Abner's got unjustified beef. They claim that Abner suggests the translation is wrong because it evokes feeling other than those evoked by the original. They follow up by saying that we don't know how people originally responded or how its author intended them to react.
But does that mean Dr. Abner's criticism is unwarranted? Not necessarily.
Just because we don't know for sure how folks responded or what the author intended at the moment doesn't mean we can't figure it out down the road. It's possible that Abner has a hypothesis yet to be evaluated, and that it ends up being correct.
Turns out to be a flaw question, so I'm looking for something like, "overlooks the possibility that we could eventually determine either the author's original intention or the public's original emotional reactions."
Let's take a look.
Nah, this isn't the translator's error.
No, the translator isn't saying, "Everyone think's Abner's wrong, so he's wrong," or even, "Everyone agrees with my assessment, so Abner's wrong." Get outta here, B.
No, if anything the translator implicitly acknowledges this possibility. The translator straight up says, "We don't know what people thought back then," which leaves open this possibility. Can't be the answer.
Huh? The "circumstances" of the person offering it? I'm not even sure what this means. If you're pointing to the word "scornful" when picking this answer choice, you simply have to read more carefully. In order for an answer like this to be correct, we'd need it to say something like, "Abner's down on his luck, so he's clearly making this indictment of my work to regain some credibility."
Finally, yes. It's a deviation from my prediction, but still spot-on. The translator is concluding that because we don't know something we can write it off as justification for critiquing their work. This is the answer.
0 Comments