Book Reviewers who wish to have one of their book reviews nominated for the pres

Question

Book Reviewers who wish to have one of their book reviews nominated for the prestigious National Books Critics Circle award should not submit book review articles that review more than three books at a time. This is because editors for the National Books Critics CircleReview will not publish a book review article if it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read. In their submission guidelines, the editors explicitly state that review articles that cover more than three books at a time are considered too lengthy and cumbersome to read. Which of the following statements represents an assumption upon which the arguments above depend?

Options:

A . The books review article that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.

B . If a book review article is published in the National Books Critics Circle Review, that article will receive the prestigious National Books Critics Circle award.

C . All articles published in the National Books Critics Circle Review must be limited to a certain length specified by the editors.

D . To be nominated for the National Books Critics Circle award, a Reviewer's book review article must be published in the National Books Critics Circle Review .

Answer: Option D
:
D
The author concludes that Book Reviewers who want their work to be nominated for the National Books Critics Circle award should only submit articles containing reviews on three or fewer books. The evidence follows: the National Books Critics Circle basically will not publish any book review article that reviews more than three books. Look back over the conclusion and evidence and you'll realize that they aren't really talking about the same thing. The conclusion is about what one should do in order to get his work nominated for the award, and the evidence is about what one should do in order to get his work published. That's classic scope shift. The only way to make these two different subjects relate to one another is to assume that one must have a review article published in the Review in order to be eligible for the award. Otherwise, the evidence about publication requirements would have no relevance to the conclusion about nomination requirements.

Was this answer helpful ?

Next Question