Studies of Homer

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct71% picked this

   It has dealt extensively with the Homeric poems as

   Why this is right

   This starts off a little strong ("extensively"?), but it's otherwise what we were looking for. The gist of the passage was that from 1935 - 1970, the scholarship on Homer didn't seem to be interested in his poems. "The questions that occupied the specialists were directed elsewhere". But then Adam Parry led the scholars out of this distracted phase and back towards the poetry; he "was among those scholars responsible for a renewed interest in Homer's poetry as literary art." Although extensively seemed a little strong, it's logical opposite is "barely or not at all". "Does that textbook cover Stacked Grouping games?" Yes, extensively. . vs. Not really. A few pages, but not much. In the. 1935-1970 weird phase, there were probably some scholarly papers on Homer's poetry, but scholarship largely was directed elsewhere. So when we shift into the post-1970 era, we shift from "barely any focus on the poetry" to "extensive focus on the poetry".

   Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   71%
2. B

   Self-Contradictory7% picked this

   It is more incisive than the work of

   Milman Parry did work leading up to 1935. Adam Parry did work since 1970. So this answer is saying, "The post-1970 scholarship, which included Adam Parry, was more incisive than the work of Milman and Adam Parry." Neither Milman nor Adam were part of the 1935-1970 weird phase. Milman still undertook "intensive analysis of the poetry itself". The scholars of 1935-1970 are the ones who took Milman's work in this weird nonpoetical direction.

   7%
3. C

   Too Strong: rejected as irrelevant8% picked this

   It has rejected as irrelevant the scholarship produced by specialists between

   We don't have any support for the harsh claim that since 1970, scholars have rejected everything that happened during the "weird phase" of 1935-1970. Our author might do that, since she seems to have little respect for the 1935-1970 phase, but we have no evidence that scholars share that disparaging view. In fact, we're told that Adam Parry (who represents the post-1970 scholarship), was trying to reconcile the 1935-1970 stuff with a return to caring about the poetry itself. [Homer's poems] were, Adam Parry thought, the beneficiaries of an inherited store of diction, scenes, and concepts (this is the nonpoetical tangential stuff covered in the 1935-1970 phase), and at the same time highly individual works that surpassed these conventions (this is saying, "Let's also appreciate Homer's specific talents at poetry!")

   8%
4. D

   Too Strong: ignored8% picked this

   It has ignored the work of Simone Weil and

   All we know about post-1970 is that scholars started focusing on Homer's poetry itself again, and whatever stuff gets said in the last paragraph. Nothing in the last paragraph says anything like, "scholars ignored the work of Weil and Auerbach". In fact, since Weil and Auerbach were focused on the poetry itself, as are the post-1970 scholars, we'd have more reason to think that post-1970 scholars embraced the work of Weil and Auerbach.

   8%
5. E

   Out of Scope: attempted to confirm5% picked this

   It has attempted to confirm that the Iliad and the Odyssey were

   All we know about post-1970 is that scholars started focusing on Homer's poetry itself again, and whatever stuff gets said in the last paragraph. Nothing in the last paragraph says anything like, "scholars were trying to confirm whether Homer really wrote the two famous works attributed to him".

   5%