Art critic: The Woerner Journalism

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: portrays9% picked this

   The Woerner Journalism Award for criticism should not be given to a writer who portrays utilitarian objects

   We don't know from any evidence whether Paulsen portrayed cars as art, so we can't be sure if this rule even applies to Paulsen.

   9%
2. B

   Correct80% picked this

   Reviews of objects cannot appropriately be considered to be criticism unless the objects reveal important truths about the

   Why this is right

   With "unless", you can switch it to "if-not": if objects not reveal important truths ? not criticism We know that Paulsen's review was about the object of cars, which is not art, which therefore does not reveal important truths. So according to this rule, Paulsen's review cannot be considered criticism. If we add that to the author's premise that the award should only be given to criticism, then we get to her conclusion that P's car review shouldn't have been given the award.

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

   80%
3. C

   Out of Scope10% picked this

   Unless a review is written for the purpose of revealing important truths about the writer's culture, that review should not

   Out of Scope: for the purpose / writer's culture Man, this is a mean trap answer. If we use an "if-not" translation for the unless, we get: The review wasn't written shouldn't be to reveal important truths ? called about writer's culture criticism The rule definitely lands where we want it to. But can we trigger it? Do we know that Paulsen didn't write the auto review for the purpose of revealing important truths about her culture? Not quite. We know that, since the article was about cars. We know cars (being a non-art object) don't reveal anything about the culture that produced the car. But we don't know whether Paulsen was writing about cars in her culture. And maybe cars can't reveal any important truths about culture, but Paulsen's review of cars could have still had some revealing truth about her culture. Also, even if we thought we knew that her auto review doesn't reveal important truths, that wouldn't clearly establish whether she wrote the review with the purpose of revealing important truths. There's a distinction between Intent and Results.

   10%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match0% picked this

   The Woerner Journalism Award for criticism should not be given to writers who do not consider

   Do we know whether Paulsen does / doesn't consider herself a critic? No, we have no idea. Hence, we can't use this rule because we don't know if it applies.

   0%
5. E

   Illegal Opposite1% picked this

   All writing that reveals important truths about a culture should be considered

   We were looking for ~Reveal Important Truths ? ~Criticism and this answer is giving the illegally negated version of that: Reveal Important Truths ? Criticism The rule in (E) only has the power to prove something is criticism (or doesn't reveal important truths). It doesn't have the power to prove that something isn't criticism.

   1%