Try this reading comprehension?

256bits

D is the answer.
"looking beyond his specific subject at society, history, philosophy"
He might have philisophical insight, but not necessarily so, and only if his subject matter is philosophy.

A is necessary due to "to be a teacher" and "be a thinker"
B is necessary due to "taking off from where the classroom, always prematurely, has stopped" (implying 'the' something beyond rote and roster) and "to be a thinker"
C is necessary due to"to write as well as a novelist or playwright"

Do I win the prize?

Jimmy Snyder

Novels are matters of fact?

256bits

The act of writing a novel does entail some degree of knowledge of language and how words and phrases can be put together to form and convey an idea to the reader. It is a matter of fact that someone should have knowledge of sentence structure, and be aware of the usage of literary tools to communicate feelings and ambiance through words. Novelist and playwights attempt, sometimes with great success. The critic must also use these matters of fact in writing, to be successful.

Gokul43201

You should introduce this liberal arts major to the person who assigned that terrible, terrible paragraph for reading comprehension. I think they'll hit it off quite handsomely.

Gokul43201

The adjective 'matter-of-fact' (meaning 'direct', 'unemotional' or 'unembellished') is a significantly different beast than a matter of fact (a noun).

256bits

In that sense I agree. Comparing the answers, how can one be "A Enlightening (and instructional) B Original thinking" and also have a "C Matter-of-fact attitude" meaning unimaginative. One could conclude that C is not compatable with the other essential characteristics.

I would suggest that in this short essay 'matter of fact attitude' is being used as meaning a practical knowledge of a subject.

eggshell

the answer is c, regardless of what the given solution is.

Alex_Sanders

Yes, as a matter of fact, you did.

The answer is D, albeit I strongly disagree.

zoobyshoe

Your informant is wrong. There is nothing in the paragraph that can be paraphrased to mean, or interpreted as implying, a matter-of-fact attitude is essential in a good critique.

Pythagorean

Reformatting the quote:

three duties:

1) to write as well as a novelist or playwright;
2) to be a teacher, taking off from where the classroom, always prematurely, has stopped
3) to be a thinker, looking beyond his specific subject at society, history, philosophy.

A Enlightening and instructional
B Original thinking
C Matter-of-fact attitude
D Philosophical insight

So the correlations are:

1) B
2) A
3) D

Yeah, I don't really see a solid case for 3) C, but I could see it being argued.

I could also see 2) and 3) as below, but no idea how 1) meets C) or D).

1) ?
2) A
3) B

collinsmark

Out of morbid curiosity, what is the source of this reading comprehension question? And more importantly, who is the official authority on the 'correct' answer? Did it come from a standardized test, or was it something that the liberal arts major acquaintance created (or one of his or her instructors/professors)?

By the way, if instead of asking,

"Based on the above paragraph, which of the following qualities was NOT mentioned/deemed essential by the author as a critique?"

it instead asked,

"Based on the above paragraph, which of the following qualities was NOT demonstrated by the author of the above critique?"

then I might be able to go with D.

dipole

Everybody shut up and give me an equation dammit.

MarcoD

Personally, I still think there case for original thinking is still pretty weak. I mean 1), a novelist or playwright implies original thinking? It's more often effective use of style and themes, there are not a lot of original works. Or 3) a thinker who looks beyond his own field? Just reading the newspaper regularly doesn't make you an original thinker.

A lousy exercise, with some thinking, I am pretty sure you can make any answer fit. But then, it's liberal arts, right?

DaveC426913

zoobyshoe

3.) definitely implies original thinking: thinking outside the paradigm of the subject at hand. "His subject" doesn't mean his field, it means the subject he is writing about. It says a good critic can connect whatever specific thing he's discussing to larger social, historical, and philosophical considerations, for example.

Pythagorean

That's technically true, but you can still follow the formula and fail. You have to put things together in an original way sooner or later.

A large part of this is not being a textualist, though. Rather, it's guessing what the writer meant.