Can someone please help me in understanding this long passage, I got all of them wrong.
The passage is talking about the change in Behn’s literary style and the focus of her work, rather than her contribution to some emerging literary form. Moreover, the passage is not talking about any development of a form in the literature. So, option 2 is wrong. I hope you are able to understand what I’m trying to say.
I understood your point why B is incorrect, but what about C that could also be true
So as las aptly justified why B is wrong, C might be correct based on the evidence. However, its not the main idea, its not the primary purpose. Its one of the trees in the forest.
The author’s purpose of contrasting the convictions between her approaches before and now are just to give context. Notice how the RC completely shifts from differentiating her approaches to contrasting her idea of a “tragedy” with Dryden. In fact there’s a clear “hammer” here in the passage. (Hammer referring to the main idea, as Greg puts it). The second para starts off with the author offering a concession from Behn’s side (noted by Carnell) "Carnell acknowledges…". Immideatly, after 3-4 lines it says " However, Carnell argues that Behn…". A concession is given before the author breaks down an argument or contrasts an idea.
Eg: “Sure the pizza tasted good, but it was too costly”. The part before the comma being the concession, the part after being the main idea, or the hammer.
Essentially the main idea here is that Behn took issue with how others depicted a tragedy.
Hope this helps.
1 Like
Shrey beautifully explained.