(GRE reading)Initially the Vinaver theory that Malory‘s eight romances...

English as a Second Language Preparation forum for the GRE® Test
1

Please help me with the following questions, thanks！

Initially the Vinaver theory that Malory‘s eight
romances, once thought to be fundamentally unified.
were in fact eight independent works produced both a
Line sense of relief and an unpleasant shock. Vinaver‘s
5 theory comfortably explained away the apparent
contradictions of chronology and made each romance
independently satisfying. It was, however, disagreeable
to find that what had been thought of as one book was
now eight books. Part of this response was the natural
10 reaction to the disturbance of set ideas. Nevertheless,
even now, after lengthy consideration of the theory‘s
refined but legitimate observations, one cannot avoid
the conclusion that the eight romances are only one
work. It is not quite a matter of disagreeing with the
15 theory of independence, but of rejecting its implications:
that the romances may be taken in any or no particular
order, that they have no cumulative effect, and that they
are as separate as the works of a modern novelist.

  1. The author of the passage concedes which of the
    following about the Vinaver theory?
    (A) It gives a clearer understanding of the unity of
    Malory‘s romances.
    (B) It demonstrates the irrationality of considering
    Malory‘s romances to be unified.
    © It establishes acceptable links between Malory‘s
    romances and modern novels.
    (D) It unifies earlier and later theories concerning
    the chronology of Malory‘s romances.
    (E) It makes valid and subtle comments about
    Malory‘s romances.

The answer is E, but I cannot find any mistakes of choice B. The Vinaver theory says the chronology was wrong (which means previous assumption of viewing them as unified is wrong and irrational), in this sense, B sould be correct

  1.    It can be inferred from the passage that, in evaluating the Vinaver theory, some critics were

(A) frequently misled by the inconsistencies in Malory’s work
(B) initially biased by previous interpretations of Malory’s work
© conceptually displeased by the general interpretation that Vinaver rejected
(D) generally in agreement with Vinaver’s comparisons between Malory and modern novelists
(E) originally skeptical about Vinaver’s early conclusions with respect to modern novels

The correct answer is B, but C also seems valid.

May you help me point out where my logic fallacies are? Thanks

2

  1. At first I too thought B might be correct, but the author is saying that even if the romances were independent works, they are best read in a “particular order”, they still have “a cumulative effect” and that they work together, much like the books of a modern novelist. So seeing them as being unified in some way is not irrational. I thought the answer E was extremely wishy-washy, but it is still undeniably true I guess.

  2. B seems pretty clearly correct to me - “It was … disagreeable to find that what they had thought of as one book was now 8 books. Part of this response was the natural reaction to the disturbance of set ideas” There is no indication that there was a “conceptual displeasure” of the previous theory, that they were all one work. The only mention of a problem with this earlier theory was the “apparent contradictions of chronology”, which I don’t think is strong enough to support a “conceptual displeasure”.

3

Oh I see…Maybe I was too tired that I misunderstood 20.© . If the choice is “conceptually displeased by the general interpretation that Vinaver 「suggested」”, will it be correct?

4

Yes, in that case I think it would be correct - watch out though, there is sometimes more than one answer that could be interpreted as correct, but they are looking for the “best” answer, the one that is most clearly correct.

5

I see. Thank you very much！