Q20 - Lyle: Admittedly, modernizing the language

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
ID the Disagreement

Break down the Stimulus:

L: Modernizing the language of old plays is useful for teaching history, since its upside (makes plays accessible to modern students) outweighs the downside (lessens aesthetic quality).
C: Modernizing is of no use for teaching history, since students can't fully understand what the old plays were saying and thus can't gain deep knowledge of the past.

Any prephrase?
This one has a pretty apparent disconnect: Lyle thinks modernizing IS valuable for teaching history. Carl thinks modernizing is of no use for teaching history. Normally, with that obvious and superficial a disagreement, the correct answer will be more subtle and will rank the people's underlying concerns against each other.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
A) Pedagogical value is too vague. This needs to be about "value in teaching history". Neither person is speaking this broadly as to whether modernized plays have different teaching value. Carl would probably say YES to this idea, since we know he thinks that a modernized play loses its pedagogical value for teaching history. Lyle might also say YES, though. Even though Lyle still thinks that modernized plays have value for teaching history, he could still agree that it's a DIFFERENT value from that of the original.

B) They might both agree to this too. They are speaking in absolute terms. Modernized plays do / don't have teaching value. This answer is in comparative terms. We also don't know Carl feels about the effects of lessened aesthetic quality. We only know that Carl thinks that "if you can no longer fully understand what old audiences were hearing, you can't gain deep knowledge, and thus it has no historical teaching value."

C) Red flag: "Highest form" of enjoyment. Neither person is ranking forms of aesthetic enjoyment.

D) Scanning for something that addresses "does it or doesn't it have value for teaching history", we find this one. It seems like Lyle would say YES and Carl would say NO.

E) Red flag: "requires". Lyle DOES make it seem like modernizing the language always involves lessening the aesthetic quality, but we have no idea how Carl feels about whether there's a loss in aesthetic quality.

Takeaway/Pattern: This actually turned out easier than I feared. We can always try to prephrase the disconnect by re-reading the 1st person's claims and asking ourselves, "Did the 2nd person try to argue the opposite of this?" Did Carl try to argue that "modernizing plays DOESN'T lessen aesthetic quality?" No. Did Carl try to argue that "Modernizing does NOT remain valuable for teaching history?" Yes, explicitly.

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

I chose B because I thought Lyle would says No (in the middle of his statement) and Carl would say Yes. (in the 2nd statement of hers)
What makes B wrong? and why is D correct?

[seychelles1718]

I picked E via POE but how do we know Carl's opinion about increasing accessibility of premodern plays? He explicitly disagrees with Lyle's conclusion and does not mention at all about accessibility. He uses a separate premise (cannot gain deep knowledge of the past) to support his argument.

Any help would be appreciated.

[ohthatpatrick]

Carl has a blanket claim that "Modernizing plays is of no use for teaching history".

So it doesn't matter whether you're
increasing accessibility via modernizing plays
or
trying to get Kelly to date you via modernizing plays

We know that Carl would hold that "whatever you were hoping to accomplish by modernizing plays, you will NOT have done anything useful for teaching history".

Also, when Carl says "SUCH modernizing" in his first sentence, he's basically referring to everything he just heard Lyle talk about.

[delaney.gold.diamond]

In other words, choice D is the best answer because it boils down the main disagreement. Whereas B explains one of the factors that goes into his opinion, D better encapsulates the actual difference of opinion.