Q13

[gplaya123]

Can some one go over what second and third paragraph actually try to say as well as #13?

[alexg89]

Paragraph 2: Some critics claim structure... then the rebuttal from the author. They claim judicial authority is purely institutional and that intellectual authority does not exist, which the author counters.

Paragraph 3: Author responds to anticipated objection and illustrates a case where intellectual authority was judged using a standard derived from institution authority.

A: This was done in paragraph one
B: Misses the point of the example, too narrow and not general enough to fit the structure of what the example is trying to counter
C: Same issue as in B
D: Correct and could be anticipated to some degree by reading the structure of paragraph 3
E: Unsupported, this wouldn't make sense if you understand the claim that the author is trying to counter

It also helps to have an understanding of the author's main conclusion that legal systems predominately use institutional authority yet still contain a significant amount of institutional authority. Basically the author spends the entire time trying to show that it is not one extreme vs another, rather that they contain both to a certain degrees.

[WaltGrace1983]

I wanted to chime in with my own explanations as I am trying to sharpen my skills. Thanks!

The reason why the musicology analogy is brought up is fairly bluntly stated in the beginning of the third paragraph: "But, this critics might respond, intellectual authority is only recognized as such because of institutional consensus. For example, if a musicologist..."

Thus we might be able to pre-phrase something. Perhaps we could say that the example is brought up to show that institutional consensus (authority) plays a big part in ultimately assessing intellectual authority.

(A) This seems wrong for two reasons. First of all, this - as mentioned above - is primarily done in the 1st paragraph. If we did this in the first paragraph, we have little reason to believe that the passage would try to do this again. That would seem highly redundant. In addition, the example doesn't seem to distinguish the two concepts as it does fuse them together. The example basically says that intellectual authority NEEDS institutional authority.

(B) This seems a bit off-base for a few reasons. Firstly, it fails to encompass the larger point that the author was trying to develop. The point was not to show a specific example of something not prevailing in its own time; the point was the show that "intellectual authority is only recognized as such because of institutional consensus. Secondly, the example was purely hypothetical. In other words, this example never actually happened (if a musicologist were to claim...the critics might say...) and yet (B) seems to make the example more concrete, that it actually DID occur.

(C) This is basically the same as (B) and it is wrong for the same reasons.

(D) This is almost verbatim exactly what the author says what the example would do. Perfect!

(E) "Entirely institutional" is off the mark. The point the author is making is that it is NOT entirely institutional but rather a mix of institutional and intellectual. I really like how the previous poster put it - this analogy should be seen in the grand scheme of the main point of the passage.

[xiongdy_vip]

OK I guess my question is stupid but I just need to confirm... Is the musicologist regarded as an intellectual authority here? Cuz otherwise none of these explanations makes sense to me.

[tommywallach]

Yep.

[Vivi]

I have an additional question between D and E, if anyone could care addressing.

Line 28: CRITICS might respond, .... e.g then was given.

Question was asked what the author's purpose of the example is?

Option 1: be honest to the "LOCAL's purpose" - which is after critics and demonstrate why "critics' might say" ( that can be totally in-line with author's big purpose that is to kill Critics' opinion and then marry intellectual and institutional) ----- lead me to choose E "entirely institutional" - because that's what critic's purpose is to say that it's pure institutional"

Option 2: overlook "local's purpose", only kiss author's big purpose/ main purpose's article.. ----- lead me to agree with D

My questions are:
1. did I interpret anything wrong?

2. If there is indeed a dilemma in choosing between option 1 and 2, is there any thumb rule to address it safely in answering other similar RC questions facing to choose between local's or aurhor's big picture ?


- thanks in advance

[maryadkins]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but in general, when you're asked for an author's purpose in using a particular example, you want to focus on the part of the passage being referenced. (E) here is not incorrect because it's too localized. It's incorrect because it's too extreme. The author isn't suggesting that musicologists are "entirely institutional."