Read the interpretation below of the author's purpose in writing The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian and answer the question that follows.

Sherman Alexie wrote the book in order to advocate for Native Americans' rights. He did a great job!

What is missing from the interpretation?

A) No evidence is present to defend the interpretation.

B) It isn't the correct interpretation, which is discussed in the lecture.

C) It is missing the other two purposes or reasons Alexie wrote the book.

D) Sherman Alexie never stated why he wrote the book.

A.

Explanation:

"The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian" is a novel written by Sherman Alexie, published first in 2007. The novel was written in first person narrative perspective. The book is about Arnold Spirit Junior, a fourteen-year-old cartoonist.

The given interpretation is missing the evidence of its claim. The interpreter has told what he thinks the author's purpose in writing the novel but he did not provided or defended his interpretation by showing the evidences from the novel.

The right way of interpreting any novel or piece of writing is to provide evidences from the text, of your statement that you are claiming to be true and valid.

For example, if I am saying that the theme of the novel "Pride and Prejudice" is love and marriage, then I would quote the text that proves my statement.

So, the correct answer is option A.

A) No evidence is present to defend

Explanation:

Although his interpretation is presented, it has nothing at all stated in the interpretation that support the claim. Why do you believe that the book is about Native Americans' rights? How did you come to that conclusion? Why do you think that your opinion is correct? What supports that claim at all?