All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.
The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?
  • a)
    Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.
  • b)
    Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.
  • c)
    Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.
  • d)
    Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.
  • e)
    Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you publis...
(A) Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review: In the letter, the author accuses Mr. Duxbury of belittling their book in order to promote his own book. By questioning Mr. Duxbury's motives, the author is suggesting that the unfavorable review was biased and unfair. This method of argument attacks the credibility and integrity of the reviewer, rather than focusing on the content of the review itself.
(B) Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review: The author does not directly attack the book written by Mr. Duxbury. Instead, they focus on Mr. Duxbury's motives and actions. While they mention that Mr. Duxbury published a book on the same topic, the letter does not provide any criticism or negative comments about his book.
(C) Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review: Although the author mentions that Mr. Duxbury published a book on the same topic, they do not explicitly compare or contrast their book with his. The letter does not provide any details or arguments about why the author's book is superior or different from Mr. Duxbury's.
(D) Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review: While the author indirectly questions the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review by accusing him of bias, the main focus is on Mr. Duxbury's motives rather than his judgment.
(E) Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work: The letter does not explicitly state that her book should not have been reviewed by Mr. Duxbury or anyone with a competing work. The author's main concern is with Mr. Duxbury's alleged biased motives rather than the reviewer's eligibility.
Given these explanations, it is clear that the method of argument used in the letter is (A) Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you publis...
Answer:

The author of the letter is employing the method of attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review in order to make her point. Let's break down the elements of the argument:

1. Introduction:
The author begins by addressing the editor and expressing her obligation to comment on the unfair review published by Robert Duxbury.

2. Background information:
The author reveals that Robert Duxbury recently published his own book on the same topic as her book, which the editor asked him to review. This information is crucial in understanding the author's point of view.

3. Main argument:
The author argues that it is regrettable for Mr. Duxbury to belittle her book in order to elevate his own work. By making this claim, the author is attacking the motives of the reviewer. She suggests that Mr. Duxbury's negative review may have been influenced by his desire to promote his own book at the expense of hers.

4. Supporting evidence:
The author does not provide explicit evidence to support her claim, but the implication is that Mr. Duxbury's motives are questionable due to the conflict of interest he has as a competing author.

5. Conclusion:
The author concludes by asserting that it is unfair for her book to be reviewed by someone who has a competing work. This statement further reinforces her argument that Mr. Duxbury's review may have been biased.

Overall, the author's argument revolves around attacking the motives of the reviewer, suggesting that he unfairly reviewed her book to promote his own. This method of argument aims to discredit the reviewer's credibility and diminish the impact of his unfavorable review.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Behind every book review there are two key figures: a book review editor and a reviewer. Editors decide whether a book is reviewed in their publication, when the review appears, how long it is, and who writes the review.When many periodicals feature the same books, this does not prove that the editors of different periodicals have not made individual decisions. Before publication, editors receive news releases and printers proofs of certain books, signifying that the publishers will make special efforts to promote these books. They will be heavily advertised and probably be among the books that most bookstores order in quantity. Not having such books reviewed might give the impression that the editor was caught napping, whereas too many reviews of books that readers will have trouble finding in stores would be inappropriate. Editors can risk having a few of the less popular titles reviewed, but they must consider what will be newsworthy, advertised, and written about elsewhere.If these were the only factors influencing editors, few books that stand little chance of selling well would ever be reviewed. But editors feel some concern about what might endure, and therefore listen to literary experts. A generation ago, a newspaper used a brilliant system of choosing which books to feature. The book review editor sent out a greater number of books than reviews he actually intended to publish. If a review was unenthusiastic, he reasoned that the book was not important enough to be discussed immediately, and if good reviews of enough other books came in, the unenthusiastic review might never be printed. The unenthusiastic reviewers were paid promptly anyway, but they learned that if they wanted their material to be printed, it was advisable to be kind.Most editors print favorable and unfavorable reviews; however, the content of the review may be influenced by the editor. Some editors would actually feel that they had failed in their responsibility if they gave books by authors they admired to hostile critics or books by authors they disapproved of to critics who might favor them. Editors usually can predict who would review a book enthusiastically and who would tear it to shreds.According to the passage, a major concern of the unenthusiastic book reviewers mentioned inline 33was to

Behind every book review there are two key figures: a book review editor and a reviewer. Editors decide whether a book is reviewed in their publication, when the review appears, how long it is, and who writes the review.When many periodicals feature the same books, this does not prove that the editors of different periodicals have not made individual decisions. Before publication, editors receive news releases and printers proofs of certain books, signifying that the publishers will make special efforts to promote these books. They will be heavily advertised and probably be among the books that most bookstores order in quantity. Not having such books reviewed might give the impression that the editor was caught napping, whereas too many reviews of books that readers will have trouble finding in stores would be inappropriate. Editors can risk having a few of the less popular titles reviewed, but they must consider what will be newsworthy, advertised, and written about elsewhere.If these were the only factors influencing editors, few books that stand little chance of selling well would ever be reviewed. But editors feel some concern about what might endure, and therefore listen to literary experts. A generation ago, a newspaper used a brilliant system of choosing which books to feature. The book review editor sent out a greater number of books than reviews he actually intended to publish. If a review was unenthusiastic, he reasoned that the book was not important enough to be discussed immediately, and if good reviews of enough other books came in, the unenthusiastic review might never be printed. The unenthusiastic reviewers were paid promptly anyway, but they learned that if they wanted their material to be printed, it was advisable to be kind.Most editors print favorable and unfavorable reviews; however, the content of the review may be influenced by the editor. Some editors would actually feel that they had failed in their responsibility if they gave books by authors they admired to hostile critics or books by authors they disapproved of to critics who might favor them. Editors usually can predict who would review a book enthusiastically and who would tear it to shreds.The main idea of the second paragraph is that

Behind every book review there are two key figures: a book review editor and a reviewer. Editors decide whether a book is reviewed in their publication, when the review appears, how long it is, and who writes the review.When many periodicals feature the same books, this does not prove that the editors of different periodicals have not made individual decisions. Before publication, editors receive news releases and printers proofs of certain books, signifying that the publishers will make special efforts to promote these books. They will be heavily advertised and probably be among the books that most bookstores order in quantity. Not having such books reviewed might give the impression that the editor was caught napping, whereas too many reviews of books that readers will have trouble finding in stores would be inappropriate. Editors can risk having a few of the less popular titles reviewed, but they must consider what will be newsworthy, advertised, and written about elsewhere.If these were the only factors influencing editors, few books that stand little chance of selling well would ever be reviewed. But editors feel some concern about what might endure, and therefore listen to literary experts. A generation ago, a newspaper used a brilliant system of choosing which books to feature. The book review editor sent out a greater number of books than reviews he actually intended to publish. If a review was unenthusiastic, he reasoned that the book was not important enough to be discussed immediately, and if good reviews of enough other books came in, the unenthusiastic review might never be printed. The unenthusiastic reviewers were paid promptly anyway, but they learned that if they wanted their material to be printed, it was advisable to be kind.Most editors print favorable and unfavorable reviews; however, the content of the review may be influenced by the editor. Some editors would actually feel that they had failed in their responsibility if they gave books by authors they admired to hostile critics or books by authors they disapproved of to critics who might favor them. Editors usually can predict who would review a book enthusiastically and who would tear it to shreds.According to the passage, book review editors pay attention to all of the following in deciding which books should be reviewed in their publications EXCEPT

Behind every book review there are two key figures: a book review editor and a reviewer. Editors decide whether a book is reviewed in their publication, when the review appears, how long it is, and who writes the review.When many periodicals feature the same books, this does not prove that the editors of different periodicals have not made individual decisions. Before publication, editors receive news releases and printers proofs of certain books, signifying that the publishers will make special efforts to promote these books. They will be heavily advertised and probably be among the books that most bookstores order in quantity. Not having such books reviewed might give the impression that the editor was caught napping, whereas too many reviews of books that readers will have trouble finding in stores would be inappropriate. Editors can risk having a few of the less popular titles reviewed, but they must consider what will be newsworthy, advertised, and written about elsewhere.If these were the only factors influencing editors, few books that stand little chance of selling well would ever be reviewed. But editors feel some concern about what might endure, and therefore listen to literary experts. A generation ago, a newspaper used a brilliant system of choosing which books to feature. The book review editor sent out a greater number of books than reviews he actually intended to publish. If a review was unenthusiastic, he reasoned that the book was not important enough to be discussed immediately, and if good reviews of enough other books came in, the unenthusiastic review might never be printed. The unenthusiastic reviewers were paid promptly anyway, but they learned that if they wanted their material to be printed, it was advisable to be kind.Most editors print favorable and unfavorable reviews; however, the content of the review may be influenced by the editor. Some editors would actually feel that they had failed in their responsibility if they gave books by authors they admired to hostile critics or books by authors they disapproved of to critics who might favor them. Editors usually can predict who would review a book enthusiastically and who would tear it to shreds.The passage provides information to answer which of the following questions?

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?a)Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.b)Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.c)Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.d)Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.e)Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?a)Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.b)Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.c)Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.d)Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.e)Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?a)Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.b)Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.c)Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.d)Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.e)Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?a)Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.b)Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.c)Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.d)Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.e)Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?a)Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.b)Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.c)Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.d)Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.e)Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?a)Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.b)Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.c)Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.d)Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.e)Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?a)Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.b)Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.c)Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.d)Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.e)Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?a)Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.b)Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.c)Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.d)Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.e)Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?a)Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.b)Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.c)Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.d)Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.e)Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?a)Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.b)Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.c)Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.d)Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.e)Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup