Reading Comprehension P.238

[kiyer71]

I have question for the reading comprehension ( my weak point). The questions that ask undermine, always confuse me. Particuarly question number 135 on Page 238, number 135 on chapter 5. From the question I think of it as which ones contradict or weaken the statement about opposing naturalism. I initially thought the answer was 1, because in the passage it says "...embracing artifice over nature in writing.." , which I took it as though literature was not a method since writing was not something that was a focus. When I look at the answer, it says it's all three and the reasoning makes me think it is asking which ones SUPPORt the claim/statement. Could someone break this down for me please! Sorry if my question may not have made sense I can clear it up if needed.

[tommywallach]

I think you misinterpreted "embracing artifice over nature in writing." It doesn't mean the two opposed things are "ARTIFICE" and "NATURE IN WRITING." The two opposed things are "ARTIFICE" and "NATURE," but both of them are involved with writing. So we're always talking about writing here.

All they're asking is "Which of these answer choices would make decadent writing more like naturalism?" All three answer choices describe NATURALISM, so if any of them were applied to decadent writing, it would mean naturalism and decadent weren't actually different.

Let me know if that clears it up!

-t