Text 1
Isaac Asimov, author of The Naked Sun and The Gods Themselves, is highly regarded despite his mediocre writing style. His prose is workmanlike; his characters are flat and discuss ideas rather than emotions. That his work is enjoyable despite this is a testament to his prodigious imagination—even if people read his books only for the ideas they will have plenty to consider.
Text 2
Asimov is critiqued for his style, but it is wrong to fault a writer for failing to do what he never intended to do. For example, although most of his novel Foundation consists of people discussing science and politics and we find out little about his characters' lives, Asimov wanted to convey the vast sweep of human history over centuries, and one of his point that at such a timescale, individuals don’t matter. Thus his lack of characterization is central to his hematic aims.
Based on the texts, the author of Text 1 would most likely agree with the author of Text 2 on which point?
Explanation
Context: Text 1 criticizes Asimov's flat characters and workmanlike prose, but praises his imagination. Text 2 defends Asimov's flat characters as intentional—in Foundation, individuals don't matter at a historical timescale, so flatness serves his thematic aims.
Answer: C) Asimov's characters can be concerned mainly with intellectual matters rather than emotions.
Why? Text 1 explicitly states characters "discuss ideas rather than emotions." Text 2 agrees that Foundation's characters focus on science and politics rather than personal lives—both acknowledge this as a defining feature of Asimov's writing.
Traps:
- A) The Naked Sun is more representative of Asimov's style than Foundation → neither text makes this comparison
- B) Asimov's style is unfairly criticized → Text 1 does criticize it; they only agree about characters being idea-focused, not about the fairness of criticism
- D) Individuals have little influence over history → Text 2 presents this as Asimov's thesis in Foundation, not as a claim both authors endorse