The accusation that a particular critical remark is "irrelevant" to its object is one of the most frequently heard in discussion and debate among critics. It is frequently heard because it's frequently correct: there has never been a dearth of criticism that carelessly relates a work to an artist's biography, or employs pointless historic speculation, or invokes inappropriate creative standards, or describes the critic's own fuzzy reveries to misdirect our attention and obscure the essential significance of the object before us. Relevance and precision are critical to criticism. This fact underscores our concern to find a correct method for constructing criticism, à concern that has generated more controversy than any single commentator might hope to obfuscate with footnotes.

Consider each of the three choices separately and select all that apply.

The passage suggests that the author would agree with which of the following statements?

(A) Critics can take many paths to making irrelevant critical remarks.
(B) Pointless historical speculation can lead to irrelevant comments about critics.
(c) The concern for defining a correct method of relevant criticism has engendered enormous controversy.



In the context in which it appears, "dearth" most nearly means:

(A) sufficiency
(B) enigma
(C) depredation
(D) scarcity
(E) inadequacy