Reading Comprehension

zky wrote:One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers "like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths." Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.
One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer's knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too. Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.
In choosing a subject, the biographer's main question should be, "Can an effective book be made out of this person's life?" Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject's life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.

It can be inferred that the author makes which of the following assumptions about biographies?
A Their main purpose is to inform readers about key aspects of the subjects' personalities. this is never mentioned nor implied anywhere in the passage. it might be one of the several purposes but it is not the main purpose
B Only subjects who share traits with biographers make good subjects for biographies. this is also never implied in the passage..
C Compelling biographies cannot be written about ordinary citizens. not mentioned nor implied..
D The biographer's credibility with readers is a factor in the critical success of a biography. here if we do not assume this statement then there is no point in discussing all the criteria for a biographer to decide to write a biography..although i don't totally agree with D as the answer.. but among all other choices D seems best..
E Practical considerations are most important in the selection of a subject for a biography. see the bold part in the passage..E is not implied or assumed..

OA : D

I choose C . Please can anyone explain me why C is worng and OA is right?

zky wrote:One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers "like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths." Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.
One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer's knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too. Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.
In choosing a subject, the biographer's main question should be, "Can an effective book be made out of this person's life?" Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject's life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.

It can be inferred that the author makes which of the following assumptions about biographies?
A Their main purpose is to inform readers about key aspects of the subjects' personalities.
B Only subjects who share traits with biographers make good subjects for biographies.
C Compelling biographies cannot be written about ordinary citizens.
D The biographer's credibility with readers is a factor in the critical success of a biography.
E Practical considerations are most important in the selection of a subject for a biography.

OA : D

I choose C . Please can anyone explain me why C is worng and OA is right?

zky wrote:Thanks for your response Ketkoag

does these lines in the paragraph:

"Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes."

Imply answer C

C Compelling biographies cannot be written about ordinary citizens.

zky wrote:One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers "like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths." Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.
One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer's knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too. Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.
In choosing a subject, the biographer's main question should be, "Can an effective book be made out of this person's life?" Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject's life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.

The author mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order to:
A) provide a counterexample to a general claim about biography
B) illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biography
C) establish a favorable comparison with an established biographer
D) underscore the importance of research in biography
E)challenge a new approach to biography

[spoiler]I am confused btn A and C - to me it appears author's approach is "to mention general view - ie often hears that biographies are autobiographies", followed by his point of view - ie "serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar", and then bring Ron Chernow's example to establish favorable comparison of his view with that of Ron (an established biographer). But OA- A. [/spoiler]

Can someone explain where I am at fault and also how to address such question

paddle_sweep wrote:How do we determine that 'D' is the correct answer?