Q19 - Any literary translation is a compromise between

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Support (Strengthen)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Translations make tradeoffs between meaning and style. Therefore, even the best translation is flawed.

Answer Anticipation:
For these, our task is to connect the premises and conclusion. Here, we should predict something relatively specific: If you have to alter either the meaning or style, then you end up with a flawed approximation.

Correct answer:
(D)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The argument concludes about what it is, not what it should be.

(B) Reversal. The conclusion should match up with the necessary condition of the principle, not the sufficient condition.

(C) Out of scope/Degree (Too Weak). The argument is about flawed translations, not "most skillful" ones. Also, the argument concludes something definitive - there's a limit to how close it can get; this answer is more wishy-washy (not necessarily).

(D) Bingo. Exactly matches the prediction, which connects the premise and conclusion.

(E) Premise booster. The author of the argument already told us there must be tradeoffs between these two.

Takeaway/Pattern: Principle Support questions almost always have an answer with the following form: If {premise}, then {conclusion}. (Or the contrapositive.)

#officialexplanation