Q10

[jpchris3]

I understand why D is correct, but what is wrong with C? I interpreted C as meaning that the works of the three authors are incorrectly viewed as emblematic of the type of works written in that period.

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

I understand why D is correct, but what is wrong with C? I interpreted C as meaning that the works of the three authors are incorrectly viewed as emblematic of the type of works written in that period.

If I said that a certain book is "an automonous and coherent whole", would you say that that means that it is "emblematic of the type of the works written in that period"?

I definitely think those two phrases are very different in meaning.

Or were you saying, since we know English scholars treated the texts they studied (such as the emblematic examples of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Sidney) as an autonomous and coherent whole, we can infer that Shakespeare's, Marlowe's, and Sidney's works were autonomous and coherent wholes?

This would be a Whole to Part fallacy. Just because the English scholars considered the English-language texts they studied to be an autonomous/coherent whole doesn't mean we can infer that the texts themselves were autonomous/coherent wholes.

I was tempted by (C) as well, because we remember that this phrase, "autonomous and coherent whole", was applied to the English-studying scholars that the author is griping about.

But, upon seeing this question stem, we should find the context in which Shakespeare, Marlowe, and Sidney were mentioned. It is in the context of the author discussing Binns's work in the 1st sentence, which tries to clarify the misconception that S,M,&S alone represent the high culture of the Renaissance.

The line reference relating to (C) comes down in the 2nd paragraph, lines 33-37.

The phrase "autonomous and coherent whole" is used to describe the entire collection of English-language writings of Renaissance England, not to describe each individual writing of an English-language writer in Renaissance England.

Hope this helps.

[deedubbew]

I did not rule out C because of the whole to part fallacy but because the question stem asked why the author chose to cite Shakespeare, etc. Binns didn't cite them as an example of what scholars think of English-language writings, but as a representation of high culture of the Renaissance. As a side note though, I think that it might be closer to a part to whole fallacy, rather than a whole to part fallacy. What is true of the part may not be true of the whole. But what is true of the whole is still true and a necessary condition of the part.

[WaltGrace1983]

Yeah, I was a bit confused too. It doesn't seem like the AUTHOR cites these writers, but rather, BINNS does.

What's the deal?

[ohthatpatrick]

It IS weird that it's asked in terms of the author, rather than Binns.

But does it really make a difference in this passage? Weren't Binns and the author essentially arguing the same point?

What is the author's purpose in presenting Binns' work in the first place? They both basically agree that some of the really important intellectual stuff was written in Latin, but only Latin scholars end up studying that stuff.

The author's main point is the last paragraph/line of the passage, and so Binns is discussed as a way of making the point that Binns makes: Shakes/Marlowe/Sidney should NOT be considered the be all, end all of high Renaissance culture. It just seems that way to some because intellectual historians normally aren't well trained in Latin (so they're missing some of the juicy stuff written in Latin).

So, in this passage, Binns cites Shakes/Marlowe/Sidney for the same reason the author does.

That's why it doesn't really matter whether they ask the question about Binns or our author.

=== other answers ===

(A) no comparison is ever made between nonfiction and imaginative works
(B) the works that revolutionized Western though were written in Latin by science-minded people
(C) this answer would be accurate if it were fixed to say "works are among the supposedly autonomous and coherent body of English-language Renaissance works"
(E) we weren't saying THESE authors had overlooked Latin works, just that there are many overlooked Latin works