thanks for your answer, but the correct one is B. though I had thought it would be E, the problem with A is that Johnson's faults are NOT equally serious, since the author says " text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion.".. he doesn't compare the faults.
But I just don't agree with B. what do you think?
thanks, shipra
Shipra, E also looks favorable at the outset... but if we look closely, it can be argued that
E) Dickinsons editors, including Johnson, have failed to deal adequately with the problem of deciphering Dickinsons handwritten manuscripts.
(i) Dickinsons editors - we dont know about ALL the editrs - only the early editors and Johnson - the later and newer editors could be very well capable - we dont know it either way (ii) problem of deciphering -- for all we know, johnson could have deciphered it accurately, lets say maybe he was very smart and he understood everything in there inspite of the mysterious 'dashes' and maybe he could have thought that it was possible with everybody else as well and so he cud have left the dashes intact.
Whew! my 2 cents! and i have a concern of my own abt B
how do we know that the readers have been misled? as far as the passage goes, no mention what so ever has been made abt the readers! the readers for all we know cud be capable enuf to recognise that the 'dashes' are just "a casual mode of poetic phrasing" ???
Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early editors of Dickinsons poetry often distorted her intentions. Yet Johnsons own, more faithful, text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion. To standardize Dickinsons often indecipherable handwritten punctuation by the use of the dash is to render permanent a casual mode of poetic phrasing that Dickinson surely never expected to see in print. It implies that Dickinson chose the dash as her typical mark of punctuation when, in fact, she apparently never made any definitive choice at all. Which of the following best summarizes the authors main point? (A) Although Johnson is right in criticizing Dickinsons early editors for their distortion of her work, his own text is guilty of equally serious distortions. (B) Johnsons use of the dash in his text of Dickinsons poetry misleads readers about the poets intentions. (C) Because Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published, virtually any attempt at editing it must run counter to her intentions. (D) Although Johnsons attempt to produce a more faithful text of Dickinsons poetry is well-meaning, his study of the material lacks sufficient thoroughness. (E) Dickinsons editors, including Johnson, have failed to deal adequately with the problem of deciphering Dickinsons handwritten manuscripts
....and i have a concern of my own abt B
how do we know that the readers have been misled? as far as the passage goes, no mention what so ever has been made abt the readers! the readers for all we know cud be capable enuf to recognise that the 'dashes' are just "a casual mode of poetic phrasing" ???
I still stick to my original answer B. :)
The question asks us to summarize the paragraph's main points... The main point of any paragraph (typically) is the conclusion that the paragraph comes to. The conclusion was to tell the readers what the flaws made by Johnson were.. The conclusion was NOT that Johnson made some mistakes, but to indicate what those mistakes were. In this line of argument choice A goes for a toss!!!!
Now coming to choice B, the closing lines of the paragraph state that "It implies that Dickinson chose the dash as her typical mark of punctuation when, in fact, she apparently never made any definitive choice at all." indicating that since Dickinson herself did not make a DEFINITIVE choice about what those dashes meant, Johnson cannot assume that the dash was chosen as the typical mark of punctuation. By doing so, he distorted facts - and hence mislead the readers.
Now coming to Neptune's arguments that we dont know if the readers were indeed mislead.. It doesnt matter.... Just because you weren't mislead, doesnt mean that the author didnt make an attemt to mislead you. Just because I might be trying to make u buy my point of reasoning (and thereby misleading u 😉 ) doesnt mean that u should be mislead. But whether u were mislead or not doesnt change the fact that I tried to mislead u. In a similar way, sentence b only talks about the author misleading the readers but doesnt mention anything about the eventuality (whether the readers were mislead or not).
to answer your question that there is no indication about the " misleading part " so for that i would want you to read the very first line where it says that " it often distorted her intentions" here we can infer that her own interpretation was different and early editors did influenced her thoughts....
to answer your question that there is no indication about the " misleading part " so for that i would want you to read the very first line where it says that " it often distorted her intentions" here we can infer that her own interpretation was different and early editors did influenced her thoughts....
think about it ....
hi dkny! often distorted her intentions" refers not to Johnson but to the early editors! "the early editors of Dickinsons poetry often distorted her intentions" the question is related to Johnson's misleading ??:
Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early editors of Dickinson's poetry often distorted her intentions. Yet Johnson's own, more faithful, text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion. To standardize Dickinson's often indecipherable handwritten punctuation by the use of the dash is to render permanent a casual mode of poetic phrasing that Dickinson surely never expected to see in print. It implies that Dickinson chose the dash as her typical mark of punctuation when, in fact, she apparently never made any definitive choice at all. Which of the following best summarizes the author's main point? (A) Although Johnson is right in criticizing Dickinson's early editors for their distortion of her work, his own text is guilty of equally serious distortions. (B) Johnson's use of the dash in his text of Dickinson's poetry misleads readers about the poet's intentions. (C) Because Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published, virtually any attempt at editing it must run counter to her intentions. (D) Although Johnson's attempt to produce a more faithful text of Dickinson's poetry is well-meaning, his study of the material lacks sufficient thoroughness. (E) Dickinson's editors, including Johnson, have failed to deal adequately with the problem of deciphering Dickinson's handwritten manuscripts.
thanks, shipra
---------------------------------------------
guys....i'll stick to my answer i.e. B
A) as shipra said that there is no hint about the "degree of distortions" for johnson or the early editors , so we cannot say that they are guilty of equally serious distortion.
C) "the use of the dash is to render permanent a casual mode of poetic phrasing that Dickinson surely never expected to see in print" ...the quoted statement only suggests that dickinson never expected the Poetic Phrasing to be published , hence we cannot extrapolate it to say that she never expected her poetry to be published . this was my rationale for negating C
D)is too vague to be an answer bcoz the question is all about summarizing it and the summary captures the essence of the argument m which this option does not do.
E)let's see if i can explain u why answer cannot be E, when i tackle the summary type Qs i always look for the the main theme or look for the main pt in an argument. We can clearly see that from the first sentence - where is mentions the johnsons interpretation is also guilty of distortions like early editors. Next sentence onwards it continues to explain that what is the interpretation by johnson.so the whole text is centralized on Johnson and his interpretation. now E sort of generalises the theme , what i infer from E is that johnson is just one of the herd , and hence it fails to capture the true essence .
B) see the first sentence it suggests that the early editors distorted dickinsons intentions and his own interpretation is guilty of equally serious distortions ....guys what do you make out of the word Distortion used in this contxt. i inferred that she(dickinson) had her own impression bout the her own work which were distorted/she was misled when she read the interpretations by early editors... now when he(johnson) is being held guilty for this distortion it means that his interpretation also misled ppl(though intentionally or not). and then from third sentence johnsons interpretation is given .....
B) see the first sentence it suggests that the early editors distorted johnsons intentions and her own interpretation is guilty of equally serious distortions ....guys what do you make out of the word Distortion used in this contxt. i inferred that she had her own impression bout the works of dickinson which were distorted/she was misled when she read the interpretations by early editors... now when she is being held guilty for this distortion it means that her interpretation also misled ppl. and then from third sentence johnsons interpretation is given .....
what say.....????
Its a pronoun problem.. The "her" doesnt refer to Johnson.. It refers to Dickinson.. Look at the passage again from this perspective to understand the difference in reasoning.
Its a pronoun problem.. The "her" doesnt refer to Johnson.. It refers to Dickinson.. Look at the passage again from this perspective to understand the difference in reasoning.
Vikram.
...hey vikram ....got your pt. but lets leave the grammar out of it because when i came out with the answer i had a clear understanding as to which pronoun is referring to which noun, other then that thanx for the input. and pls provide us with your perspective thanx anyway
...hey vikram ....got your pt. but lets leave the grammar out of it because when i came out with the answer i had a clear understanding as to which pronoun is referring to which noun, other then that thanx for the input. and pls provide us with your perspective thanx anyway
I go with B too, but not quite for the same reasons that u mentioned. 😃 Scroll up a few posts for my POV. 😃
Johnson is on firm ground when he asserts that the early editors of Dickinsons poetry often distorted her intentions. Yet Johnsons own, more faithful, text is still guilty of its own forms of distortion. To standardize Dickinsons often indecipherable handwritten punctuation by the use of the dash is to render permanent a casual mode of poetic phrasing that Dickinson surely never expected to see in print. It implies that Dickinson chose the dash as her typical mark of punctuation when, in fact, she apparently never made any definitive choice at all. Which of the following best summarizes the authors main point? (A) Although Johnson is right in criticizing Dickinsons early editors for their distortion of her work, his own text is guilty of equally serious distortions. (B) Johnsons use of the dash in his text of Dickinsons poetry misleads readers about the poets intentions. (C) Because Dickinson never expected her poetry to be published, virtually any attempt at editing it must run counter to her intentions. (D) Although Johnsons attempt to produce a more faithful text of Dickinsons poetry is well-meaning, his study of the material lacks sufficient thoroughness. (E) Dickinsons editors, including Johnson, have failed to deal adequately with the problem of deciphering Dickinsons handwritten manuscripts
Another reason why E should be out.. We are asked to summarize author's viewpoint..now author categorically says that Johnson did not decipher Dickonson's poetry correctly (the inappropiate use of dash) but when it comes to other editors, the author does not give his/her own viewpoint but says that Johnson believes that other editors did not decipher the poerty properly.... So, the conclusion that other editors have not dealt adequately...is Johnson's viewpoint and not author's.
One more CR. Please explain ur choice. If already discussed, pls point me to the thread. TIA. (searched the forums, but cldnt find this one)-
An advertisement designed to convince readers of the great durability of automobiles manufactured by the Deluxe Motor Car Company cites as evidence the fact that over half of all automobiles built by the company since 1970 are still on the road today, compared to no more than a third for any other manufacturer. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the advertisements argument?
(A) After taking inflation into account, a new Deluxe automobile costs only slightly more than a new model did in 1970. (B) The number of automobiles built by Deluxe each year has not increased sharply since 1970. (C) Owners of Deluxe automobiles typically keep their cars well maintained. (D) Since 1970, Deluxe has made fewer changes in the automobiles it manufactures than other car companies have made in their automobiles. (E) Deluxe automobiles have been selling at relatively stable prices in recent years.
One more CR. Please explain ur choice. If already discussed, pls point me to the thread. TIA. (searched the forums, but cldnt find this one)-
An advertisement designed to convince readers of the great durability of automobiles manufactured by the Deluxe Motor Car Company cites as evidence the fact that over half of all automobiles built by the company since 1970 are still on the road today, compared to no more than a third for any other manufacturer. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the advertisements argument?
(A) After taking inflation into account, a new Deluxe automobile costs only slightly more than a new model did in 1970. (B) The number of automobiles built by Deluxe each year has not increased sharply since 1970. (C) Owners of Deluxe automobiles typically keep their cars well maintained. (D) Since 1970, Deluxe has made fewer changes in the automobiles it manufactures than other car companies have made in their automobiles. (E) Deluxe automobiles have been selling at relatively stable prices in recent years.
I think the answer is D.. since durability is the question, IMO the original design/make, if it lasts long without any major changes/mods then it is durable OA pls?
One more CR. Please explain ur choice. If already discussed, pls point me to the thread. TIA. (searched the forums, but cldnt find this one)-
An advertisement designed to convince readers of the great durability of automobiles manufactured by the Deluxe Motor Car Company cites as evidence the fact that over half of all automobiles built by the company since 1970 are still on the road today, compared to no more than a third for any other manufacturer. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the advertisements argument?
(A) After taking inflation into account, a new Deluxe automobile costs only slightly more than a new model did in 1970. (B) The number of automobiles built by Deluxe each year has not increased sharply since 1970. (C) Owners of Deluxe automobiles typically keep their cars well maintained. (D) Since 1970, Deluxe has made fewer changes in the automobiles it manufactures than other car companies have made in their automobiles. (E) Deluxe automobiles have been selling at relatively stable prices in recent years.
Okay the argument is that the more than half of the automobiles are still on the road and it is durability which is in question. If there had been a sudden huge increase in the production of vehicles close to present, then the durability would be in question as the new vehicles would make a major chunk of the vehicles on the road. As an example, let's say that Deluxe produced 100 vehicles per year and each year 50 % of the vehicles on road become unusable... Year Production | Vehicles on Road 1 100 100 2 100 150 3 | 1000 1000+75
Now see that a sudden increase in production in 3rd year undermines the premise of durability. %age of total vehicles on road = 1075/1200 = 90% if in 3rd year, only 100 vehicles were produced. %age of total vehicles on road = 175/300 = 58%
An advertisement designed to convince readers of the great durability of automobiles manufactured by the Deluxe Motor Car Company cites as evidence the fact that over half of all automobiles built by the company since 1970 are still on the road today, compared to no more than a third for any other manufacturer. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the advertisement's argument?
(A) After taking inflation into account, a new Deluxe automobile costs only slightly more than a new model did in 1970. (B) The number of automobiles built by Deluxe each year has not increased sharply since 1970. (C) Owners of Deluxe automobiles typically keep their cars well maintained. (D) Since 1970, Deluxe has made fewer changes in the automobiles it manufactures than other car companies have made in their automobiles. (E) Deluxe automobiles have been selling at relatively stable prices in recent years.
My Reasoning: The Argument More the percentage of Cars on road since 1970, more is the durability. Deluxe cars have the highest % and hence are the most durable cars.
a) Price is stable since 1970. In no way, prices relate to either the percentage of cars on road or durability. Hence it could neither support nor undermine the argument.
b) The no of cars manufactures is almost the same every year.As Goelravin has explained clearly, B strengthens the argument by showing that only high Durability can be the reason behind the high %
c) Deluxe car owners maintain their car well and hence the cars have lasted longer.It places the credit for the durability of the Cars to the owners rather than the manufacturer and hence is weakening the argument.
d) Design/make of cars is stable. Again, it doesn't have any implication either to percentage of cars or the durability. If you are compelled to think that less design changes mean more durability/stability, i would say that you are a software engg.
e) Prices are stable in recent past. It is just a subset of point A.
Was working on this Critical reasoning problem. Couldnt understand the reasoning given. So posting it here. The source is Cliff's GMAT.
Famous painter James Whistler said,Industry in art is a necessitynot a virtueand any evidence of the same, in the production,is a blemish, not a quality.
Whistler is arguing that A. of necessity, art becomes industrialized. B. the qualities of art are its virtues. C. blemished paintings are the work of overindustrious artists. D. the product reflects the means of production. E. the artist must work hard, but the art should look easy.
Was working on this Critical reasoning problem. Couldnt understand the reasoning given. So posting it here. The source is Cliff's GMAT.
Famous painter James Whistler said,Industry in art is a necessitynot a virtueand any evidence of the same, in the production,is a blemish, not a quality.
Whistler is arguing that A. of necessity, art becomes industrialized. B. the qualities of art are its virtues. C. blemished paintings are the work of overindustrious artists. D. the product reflects the means of production. E. the artist must work hard, but the art should look easy.
Seems to be a differnt kind of CR question..
In my opinion, A, C and E should be ruled out. A is out of scope as it talks of art becoming industralized. C talks of paintings specifically and E talks about hardwork which is again out of scope.
Out of B and D, I feel D is more appropriate. The author is indirctly referring to production and the product which can relate well with art industry but B talks directly of art...
What's the OA? If available, please provide the explanation too.
??: