Q7

[shirando21]

can anyone talk about how to approach this question?

The correct answer is D.

[maryadkins]

We can think of this like a weaken question in logical reasoning. We're being asked to undermine the author's claim. So the first task is to determine what that claim is.

Lines 51-56 tell us that these writers have revolutionized the genre of autobiography, redrawing the boundaries of the form to make it more amenable to expressing their own experiences and shown a strong determination to speak for themselves. We can think of this as:

redrawing the boundaries of the form --> these writers have revolutionized the genre of autobiography

(A) does the opposite of what we want. It supports this argument in that it suggests the new form of autobiography stuck after the 1980s.

(B) doesn't really matter because we're talking specifically about the genre of autobiography.

(C) some? Too ambiguous to be a very good weakener.

(D) is a surprising answer at first. Nineteenth-century? Why are we going that far back? That's the 1800s. Oh wait, it's telling us that there were autobiographies in the 1800s that did the same thing these 1980s autobiographies did. If that's true, how did the 1980s books revolutionize anything? It was already happening. (D) is correct.

(E) is like (B) -- outside the scope of our claim, which deals with autobiographies.

[Acing LSAT]

The one issue I have with your logic is that if it is fair to assume they were not exposed to these 19th cen works ("generaly unknown") then they too revultionized autobigroapgies.

I do realize they were not the real inovaters, but the passage's point about being a brave expression holds true.

[jfalconfree]

This question tricked me also. I chose 'B', which contrary to the explanation above does directly bear on whether these works revolutionized the genre of autobiography ("few critically acclaimed books...have been [mixed genre] autobiographical collections"). I think that B is a poor answer rather because it is qualified by 'critically acclaimed' and 'Latina' - if the answer read "Few autobiographical books since the late 1980s have been mixed genre" it would be very strong, since, how could these works have revolutionized the genre if they did not lead to the production of other mixedgenre autobiographies? - this is how I originally interpreted the answer.

D is somewhat tricky I think because the fact that something was done or thought previously does not necessarily mean that subsequent instances of this do not revolutionize the field, or our understanding, or so whatever. For example it would be common to say that Darwin's evolutionary theories revolutionized our understanding of Biology, regardless of the fact that other theorists had discussed evolution prior to Darwin's account. Similarly, in literature, it would make sense that a particular trend or innovation which was first introduced in the 1800s did not have an appreciable effect on the literary environment, while when it was tried again later it did revolutionize a genre. Answer D says that these works are generally unknown. Why are they generally unknown? Perhaps they are poorly written, or they are written by people with boring lives that no one would want to read about. If this is the case then it would not be improper to say that later theorists did revolutionize the genre of autobiography by using some of the same stylistic maneuvers in a more skillful/interesting or at least more readable way. If books are not read then it would be a stretch to say that they revolutionized a genre.

In any case, upon review I think D is pretty clearly the best answer through process of elimination, but I hate it and I hate this question.

[FarOutsidetheBox]

This question tricked me also. I chose 'B', which contrary to the explanation above does directly bear on whether these works revolutionized the genre of autobiography ("few critically acclaimed books...have been [mixed genre] autobiographical collections"). I think that B is a poor answer rather because it is qualified by 'critically acclaimed' and 'Latina' - if the answer read "Few autobiographical books since the late 1980s have been mixed genre" it would be very strong, since, how could these works have revolutionized the genre if they did not lead to the production of other mixedgenre autobiographies? - this is how I originally interpreted the answer.

D is somewhat tricky I think because the fact that something was done or thought previously does not necessarily mean that subsequent instances of this do not revolutionize the field, or our understanding, or so whatever. For example it would be common to say that Darwin's evolutionary theories revolutionized our understanding of Biology, regardless of the fact that other theorists had discussed evolution prior to Darwin's account. Similarly, in literature, it would make sense that a particular trend or innovation which was first introduced in the 1800s did not have an appreciable effect on the literary environment, while when it was tried again later it did revolutionize a genre. Answer D says that these works are generally unknown. Why are they generally unknown? Perhaps they are poorly written, or they are written by people with boring lives that no one would want to read about. If this is the case then it would not be improper to say that later theorists did revolutionize the genre of autobiography by using some of the same stylistic maneuvers in a more skillful/interesting or at least more readable way. If books are not read then it would be a stretch to say that they revolutionized a genre.

Dude, this is pretty much exactly my thinking. Yes B is ugly (especially because of the critically acclaimed), but the fact that the test -writers went out of their way to say that the works were unknown seems to make it a poor weakener. It's like the wrote a great weakener and then qualified it in a way that made it toothless.

So does anyone have any thoughts that in light of jfalconfree's objections let you figure out why D is better? Why isn't the fact that these slid into obscurity a problem?

[maryadkins]

I think that B is a poor answer rather because it is qualified by 'critically acclaimed' and 'Latina' - if the answer read "Few autobiographical books since the late 1980s have been mixed genre" it would be very strong, since, how could these works have revolutionized the genre if they did not lead to the production of other mixedgenre autobiographies?

Agreed! But because (B) is about critically acclaimed books as a body of books, not about autobiographies as in your hypothetical here, it doesn't bear on the discussion. That is, the writers could have revolutionized the genre but just not been critically acclaimed very often.

The criticisms of (D) in this thread are fair. The best way of choosing it is to get rid of (B). (D) is simply better because (B) doesn't work, whereas there is a colorable argument in favor of (D). Or if you want you can think of it this way: there is a more colorable argument in favor of (D) than (B). It's why process of elimination is the way to go in reading comp.

[jm.kahn]

Even though B weakens the claim a bit, it doesn't weaken it as much as D.

I thought that the reason D is the right answer because it states that previous similar literary form (from the nineteenth century) is "generally unknown among contemporary critics" but doesn't say anything about whether it's unknown among general public or other intelligentsia, which if true would seriously undermine the claim that the latin writers are revolutionary.

More importantly, the author in line 51-53 have used the word 'revolutionary' in that it doesn't 'conform to existing generic parameters' and that it 'redraws the boundaries'. If similar literary form existed in nineteenth century then, regardless of whether critics know about it, the latin writers' work isn't 'revolutionary'.

[maryadkins]

I thought that the reason D is the right answer because it states that previous similar literary form (from the nineteenth century) is "generally unknown among contemporary critics" but doesn't say anything about whether it's unknown among general public or other intelligentsia, which if true would seriously undermine the claim that the latin writers are revolutionary.

More importantly, the author in line 51-53 have used the word 'revolutionary' in that it doesn't 'conform to existing generic parameters' and that it 'redraws the boundaries'. If similar literary form existed in nineteenth century then, regardless of whether critics know about it, the latin writers' work isn't 'revolutionary'.

These are great points. Thanks jm.kahn!