Q11 - It is now a common complaint

[christine.defenbaugh]

There are some really great questions here! Since this question is so very sticky, let's revisit dan's explanation above and dig a little deeper.

This is a rather complex core structure, which is not terribly uncommon for Determine the Function questions.

Quasi-Opposing Point: People complain about electronic media killing literary skills.
Premise: But people complained about literacy killing oral culture skills.
Conclusion: Electronic media results are likely a change in the mind, not devolution of the mind.

The statement we're after is clearly the premise here - but it serves as evidence for what exactly? Keep a close eye on the author's final conclusion. His point is that our brains are just going to change, rather than shrivel up and die. Who is he arguing with? People who think our brains are going to shrivel up and die.

Who thinks that? Probably the same people who are complaining about electronic media. Why do they think our brains are going to shrivel up and die? Because they say electronic media is killing literary skills.

So, we could think of those people having a core of their very own. It would look something like this:
Complainers' Premise: Electronic media is killing literary skills.
Complainers' Conclusion: Therefore, our brains are going to devolve!

The author pats them on the head and tells them not to worry. Something similar to what they are worried about happened long long ago. (It's implied that our brains did not shrivel up and die back then). So, he concludes, they probably aren't going to shrivel up and die now.

Note that the author never, ever disputes that electronic media might be killing our literary skills. His conclusion is entirely about whether our the human mind will devolve as a result. To support the claim that it won't, he points to a situation where a new skill (literacy) arguably killed off an old skill (oral culture skills), and yet our minds did not devolve. This is expressed in (C).


The Vile Temptress (D)
(D) is incredibly tempting. We know we have an opposing point, we know the author is using this statement as evidence to support his own point somehow - so this looks like water in the desert to us if we aren't careful.

But make sure your language radar is set at high scan! This answer says the statement is evidence that the claim is unwarranted. The author never actually says anything is unwarranted. mrudula_2005 is correct that the author's conclusion is soft and weak, with a 'probably', instead of a bold 'that's unwarranted!' claim.

However, that's not the only problem. The author's claim is that the unspoken opposing conclusion is probably incorrect. The author never says a thing about the idea that electronic media is killing our literary skills. That concept is really the premise of the opposing camp, and the author just disagrees with their conclusion (that our minds will devolve).


Also Not the Function
(A) The statement is evidence, for sure, but not for the claim that electronic media is killing literary skills. That's the opposition's complaint!
(B) "the means by which people communicate" is a language shift; the argument is not at all about the concept of "inseparability", nor is the conclusion a general hypothesis (rather it is a qualified prediction).
(E) This statement is not dismissed; it is also not evidence the opposition would draw on to support their argument (that our minds will devolve).


This is a very tough question! Please let me know if you have any additional concerns on this, or anything to add to the discussion!


#officialexplanation

[dan]

11. (C)
Question Type: Analyze Argument Structure
This is very tough. This question asks us to determine the function of a particular part of the argument. It’s important to determine whether the portion in question supports or opposes the author’s main conclusion. In this case, it is used as support for the conclusion, since it is an example of a previous and similar change in (not devolution of) the human mind. Answer (C) clearly expresses this role.

(A) describes the part in question as supporting the point made by the common complainers instead of supporting the author’s claim.
(B) misstates the conclusion (general hypothesis).
(D) is very attractive, but it’s not quite right. Let’s look at an analogous argument to show why not (the italicized part is the part for which we need to determine the function):

My fitness trainer argues that weight lifting will destroy my quickness. But last year he complained that working on my quickness would destroy my endurance. So, most likely, weight lifting will change my overall fitness, but will not destroy it.

The trainer thinks that weight lifting will destroy the author’s quickness. Notice that the author does NOT dispute this! Rather, the author concludes that weight lifting will change her overall fitness (maybe even conceding that her quickness will be destroyed). The trainer and the author are not arguing the same central point! The same holds true in #11. The common complaint is that electronic media will destroy literary skills. The author argues that electronic media will alter but not destroy the human mind in general. Answer (D) is wrong because it suggests that the author is arguing in direct opposition of the common complaint. Not true. In fact, the author may even agree that literary skills will be destroyed as the human mind is altered.
(E) describes the part in question as supporting the point made by the common complainers instead of supporting the author’s claim.

[mrudula_2005]

but this issue of switches in terminology (the conclusion of the stimulus talking about the "human mind" while D talking about "intellectual skills") also crops up in the correct answer choice C: the part of the stimulus that the question stem refers to is about "intellectual skills" but the answer choice switches to the "human mind." How is it justified in C but not in D?

the reason I thought (D) was off was because it is too extreme in unequivocally saying "...the claim that the intellectual skills required and fostered by the literary media are being lost is unwarranted" - The stimulus's conclusion is "So, what awaits us is probably a mere alteration of the human mind rather than its devolution." So is a strong reason for discounting (D) that D and the stimulus are expressing 2 different levels of certainty? - the stimulus being more qualified than D?

[jardinsouslapluie5]

I still don't understand.
Could you go over the detail please?

[theanswer21324]

The first sentence says that the common complaint is that these skills have been corroded, but the conclusion says that these skills will not be corroded but instead will be altered. Isn't this the same thing as saying that the first claim is unwarranted?

[ericha3535]

can someone please analyze

c vs d?

[jm.kahn]

However, that's not the only problem. The author's claim is that the unspoken opposing conclusion is probably incorrect. The author never says a thing about the idea that electronic media is killing our literary skills.

I don't see how this is a problem with D (listed below is another clear issue with D that's not been mentioned by any poster before).
Author need not say anything about the idea that electronic media is killing out literary skills and still refute the common complaint by providing evidence. So if D said -- "evidence that the common complaint is probably unwarranted", it would be correct. Can some expert comment?

The main issue with D that disqualifies it and that's no one has posted above is that it misrepresents the common complaint. It says "claim that the intellectual skill required and fostered by the literary media are being lost". But the claim in the argument is that "electronic media has corroded the intellectual skills required and fostered by the literary media."

[chunsunb]

I really think that C is incorrect.

The question asks for the role of the reference to the "complaint."

But the complaint is not an example of a cultural change. Rather, the cultural change should be the phenomenon that oral culture is supplanted by literary media. The complaint is not an example of a cultural change; it's what the complaint is pointing out that is an example of a cultural change.

So C, which says that the author pointed out the "complaint" as an example of a "cultural change," can't be right.

Any help? Thanks!

[keonheecho]

Hi, Im still confused as to why (C) is correct, though I think I understand why (D) is incorrect. Isn't the statement in question an example of a cultural change that did not necessarily have a detrimental effect on intellectual skills, which was in turn used to support the claim that a it does not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the human mind overall? Isn't that different from simply saying that it is an example of a change that did not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the human mind?

[tommywallach]

Christine's explanation is very complete, my friends. It might just be a question of recognizing that you're picking the best choice on the board, even if you don't find it perfect. Good luck studying!

-t

[chunsunb]

Now that I think about it, I was wrong. The "reference" to the complaint does play the role as ascribed by (C), although the "complaint" does not. *Mic drop*