While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes: Early 20th-century literary criticism was marked by competing visions...
GMAT Expression of Ideas : (Expression) Questions
While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:
- Early 20th-century literary criticism was marked by competing visions of proper analytical methodology.
- Irving Babbitt and traditional scholars insisted that meaningful textual interpretation demanded comprehensive understanding of authors' biographical circumstances and historical contexts.
- Opposing this view, T.S. Eliot championed a formalist approach that rejected biographical considerations, instead treating literary works as autonomous artistic creations requiring analysis of textual elements alone.
- New Criticism emerged from this formalist methodology, emphasizing close reading techniques.
- By mid-century, New Criticism had achieved institutional dominance across American universities.
- The methodological conflict fundamentally transformed academic literary study.
The student wants to compare these two analytical methods. Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to accomplish this goal?
T.S. Eliot's formalist approach argued that literary works should be analyzed as independent artistic objects, while traditional scholars like Irving Babbitt emphasized biographical context.
Literary scholars in the early 20th century were divided between biographical and formalist approaches to textual analysis.
The formalist method became known as New Criticism and dominated American universities through the mid-20th century.
Both biographical and formalist approaches offered distinct methods for literary analysis—the former emphasizing the author's life and historical context, the latter focusing solely on textual elements—with formalism ultimately gaining institutional prominence.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Early 20th-century literary criticism was marked by competing visions of proper analytical methodology." |
|
| "Irving Babbitt and traditional scholars insisted that meaningful textual interpretation demanded comprehensive understanding of authors' biographical circumstances and historical contexts." |
|
| "Opposing this view, T.S. Eliot championed a formalist approach that rejected biographical considerations, instead treating literary works as autonomous artistic creations requiring analysis of textual elements alone." |
|
| "New Criticism emerged from this formalist methodology, emphasizing close reading techniques." |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Early 20th-century literary criticism was divided between traditional biographical approaches and formalist text-focused methods, with formalism ultimately achieving institutional dominance.
Argument Flow: The notes establish a fundamental divide in literary criticism methodology, explain each competing approach, trace how formalism evolved into New Criticism, and conclude with formalism's institutional success.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- To effectively compare these two analytical methods, the correct answer should present both the traditional biographical approach AND the formalist approach
- Explain what each method emphasizes or how they differ
- Use specific information from the notes
- Potentially mention the outcome since that's part of the research
T.S. Eliot's formalist approach argued that literary works should be analyzed as independent artistic objects, while traditional scholars like Irving Babbitt emphasized biographical context.
✗ Incorrect
- Mentions both approaches and contrasts them with specific names from the notes
- Somewhat limited in scope
Literary scholars in the early 20th century were divided between biographical and formalist approaches to textual analysis.
✗ Incorrect
- Very general statement about scholars being "divided"
- Doesn't explain HOW the methods differ or use rich detail from notes effectively
The formalist method became known as New Criticism and dominated American universities through the mid-20th century.
✗ Incorrect
- Focuses only on the formalist method and its success
- Completely ignores the traditional biographical approach
Both biographical and formalist approaches offered distinct methods for literary analysis—the former emphasizing the author's life and historical context, the latter focusing solely on textual elements—with formalism ultimately gaining institutional prominence.
✓ Correct
- Presents both methods clearly (biographical vs. formalist)
- Explains what each emphasizes
- Includes the outcome
- Uses comprehensive information from the notes to create a complete comparison