Finnish author Jaakko Mikkeli was accused by Norwegian author Kirsten Halden of plagiarizing a book that she had written and that had been published 20 years before Mikkeli's. The two books, although set in different periods and regions, contain enough plot similarities to make coincidental resemblance unlikely. Mikkeli's defense rests on his argument that plagiarism was impossible in this case because Halden's book has been published only in Norwegian, a language Mikkeli does not understand, and because no reviews of Halden's book have ever been published.
The argument in Mikkeli's defense depends on the assumption that
(A) Mikkeli has never met Halden
(B) Halden's book did not become popular in Norway
C) nobody related the plot of Halden's book in detail to Mikkeli before Mikkeli wrote his book
(D) there is a common European myth to which both authors referred subconsciously in the books in question
(E) Mikkeli is not familiar with Old lcelandic, an extinct language related to an earlier form of Norwegian
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Finnish author Jaakko Mikkeli was accused by Norwegian
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
BTGmoderatorRO
- Moderator
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:29 pm
- Followed by:6 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Option A: Invalid
The sentence under consideration here lacks merit because the original article never stated nor did it, it inferred that a meeting took place or not whether in the past or currently between the two authors. It is possible they had met but for language differences.
Option B:Invalid
This is a weak statement that only sought to discredit the Halden.
The book was not stated to be unpopular in Norway and as such would be tantamount to blasphemy to generalize so.
Option C: invalid
This option puts the finish author in a disadvantage position in that, if the book had been licensed worldwide with or being without popular, his excuse would not have been convincing enough because he does not need and review help from. Anyone in this regard.
Option D: Valid
This summarily give a proper and accurate description of what happened by suggesting that they never read each other's books before writing yet, there were similarities that makes it coincidental.
Option E: Invalid
This puts Mikkeli in a weak position as the saying goes ''ignorance of something is not an excuse'' so, not being familiar with the icelandic language is not a palatable defense of the accusation.
The sentence under consideration here lacks merit because the original article never stated nor did it, it inferred that a meeting took place or not whether in the past or currently between the two authors. It is possible they had met but for language differences.
Option B:Invalid
This is a weak statement that only sought to discredit the Halden.
The book was not stated to be unpopular in Norway and as such would be tantamount to blasphemy to generalize so.
Option C: invalid
This option puts the finish author in a disadvantage position in that, if the book had been licensed worldwide with or being without popular, his excuse would not have been convincing enough because he does not need and review help from. Anyone in this regard.
Option D: Valid
This summarily give a proper and accurate description of what happened by suggesting that they never read each other's books before writing yet, there were similarities that makes it coincidental.
Option E: Invalid
This puts Mikkeli in a weak position as the saying goes ''ignorance of something is not an excuse'' so, not being familiar with the icelandic language is not a palatable defense of the accusation.
