题目信息
Critics maintain that the fiction of Herman Melville
(1819–1891) has limitations, such as its lack
of inventive plots after Moby-Dick (1851) and its
occasionally inscrutable style. A more serious, yet
problematic, charge is that Melville is a deficient
writer because he is not a practitioner of the “art of
fiction,” as critics have conceived of this art since the
late nineteenth-century essays and novels of Henry
James. Indeed, most twentieth-century commentators
regard Melville not as a novelist but as a writer of
romance, since they believe that Melville's fiction
lacks the continuity that James viewed as essential
to a novel: the continuity between what characters
feel or think and what they do, and the continuity
between characters' fates and their pasts or original
social classes. Critics argue that only Pierre (1852),
because of its subject and its characters, is close to
being a novel in the Jamesian sense.
However, although Melville is not a Jamesian
novelist, he is not therefore a deficient writer. A more
reasonable position is that Melville is a different
kind of writer, who held, and should be judged
by, presuppositions about fiction that are quite
different from James's. It is true that Melville wrote
“romances”; however, these are not the escapist
fictions this word often implies, but fictions that
range freely among very unusual or intense human
experiences. Melville portrayed such experiences
because he believed these best enabled him to
explore moral questions, an exploration he assumed
was the ultimate purpose of fiction. He was content
to sacrifice continuity or even credibility as long
as he could establish a significant moral situation.
Thus Melville's romances do not give the reader
a full understanding of the complete feelings and
thoughts that motivate actions and events that shape
fate. Rather, the romances leave unexplained the
sequence of events and either simplify or obscure
motives. Again, such simplifications and obscurities
exist in order to give prominence to the depiction of
sharply delineated moral values, values derived from
a character's purely personal sense of honor, rather
than, as in a Jamesian novel, from the conventions of
society.
(1819–1891) has limitations, such as its lack
of inventive plots after Moby-Dick (1851) and its
occasionally inscrutable style. A more serious, yet
problematic, charge is that Melville is a deficient
writer because he is not a practitioner of the “art of
fiction,” as critics have conceived of this art since the
late nineteenth-century essays and novels of Henry
James. Indeed, most twentieth-century commentators
regard Melville not as a novelist but as a writer of
romance, since they believe that Melville's fiction
lacks the continuity that James viewed as essential
to a novel: the continuity between what characters
feel or think and what they do, and the continuity
between characters' fates and their pasts or original
social classes. Critics argue that only Pierre (1852),
because of its subject and its characters, is close to
being a novel in the Jamesian sense.
However, although Melville is not a Jamesian
novelist, he is not therefore a deficient writer. A more
reasonable position is that Melville is a different
kind of writer, who held, and should be judged
by, presuppositions about fiction that are quite
different from James's. It is true that Melville wrote
“romances”; however, these are not the escapist
fictions this word often implies, but fictions that
range freely among very unusual or intense human
experiences. Melville portrayed such experiences
because he believed these best enabled him to
explore moral questions, an exploration he assumed
was the ultimate purpose of fiction. He was content
to sacrifice continuity or even credibility as long
as he could establish a significant moral situation.
Thus Melville's romances do not give the reader
a full understanding of the complete feelings and
thoughts that motivate actions and events that shape
fate. Rather, the romances leave unexplained the
sequence of events and either simplify or obscure
motives. Again, such simplifications and obscurities
exist in order to give prominence to the depiction of
sharply delineated moral values, values derived from
a character's purely personal sense of honor, rather
than, as in a Jamesian novel, from the conventions of
society.
Which of the following statements best describes the author's method of argumentation in lines 24–31(shown in boldface)?
A:The author describes an important standard of evaluation used by critics of Melville and then attacks that standard.
B:The author admits a contention put forward by critics of Melville but then makes a countercharge against those critics.
C:The author describes a charge advanced by critics of Melville and then points out a logical flaw in this charge.
D:The author provides evidence that seems to support a position held by critics of Melville but then demonstrates that the evidence actually supports a diametrically opposed position.
E:The author concedes an assertion made by critics of Melville but then mitigates the weight of the assertion by means of an explanation.
参考答案及共享解析
共享解析来源为网络权威资源、GMAT高分考生等； 如有疑问，欢迎在评论区提问与讨论
本题耗时：
已选答案：
正确答案：
E:The author concedes an assertion made by critics of Melville but then mitigates the weight of the assertion by means of an explanation.
答案 .E
题目大意，下列哪一个陈述最能描述作者在第24到第31行中的论证方法？
作者认为梅尔维尔的小说可以合理地称为“浪漫小说”，但也很小心地解释了这种命名的意义，即梅尔维尔的小说仍然被视为有效的文学作品。
A.作者描述了Melville批评家使用的一个重要的评价标准，然后对标准进行了攻击。
B.作者承认了梅尔维尔批评者提出的论点，但随后对这些批评者提出了反诉。
C.作者描述了梅尔维尔批评家提出的一项指控，并指出了该指控的逻辑缺陷。
D.作者提供的证据似乎支持Melville的批评者持有的立场，但后来证明证据实际上支持截然相反的立场。
E.作者承认了批评家Melville的断言，但是通过解释减轻了断言的权重。正确。在第24-31行中，作者承认梅尔维尔的小说是浪漫主义的。然而，作者认为这并没有减损梅尔维尔作品的文学价值。
题目大意，下列哪一个陈述最能描述作者在第24到第31行中的论证方法？
作者认为梅尔维尔的小说可以合理地称为“浪漫小说”，但也很小心地解释了这种命名的意义，即梅尔维尔的小说仍然被视为有效的文学作品。
A.作者描述了Melville批评家使用的一个重要的评价标准，然后对标准进行了攻击。
B.作者承认了梅尔维尔批评者提出的论点，但随后对这些批评者提出了反诉。
C.作者描述了梅尔维尔批评家提出的一项指控，并指出了该指控的逻辑缺陷。
D.作者提供的证据似乎支持Melville的批评者持有的立场，但后来证明证据实际上支持截然相反的立场。
E.作者承认了批评家Melville的断言，但是通过解释减轻了断言的权重。正确。在第24-31行中，作者承认梅尔维尔的小说是浪漫主义的。然而，作者认为这并没有减损梅尔维尔作品的文学价值。
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
