Passage Summary: Some people think book critics should just explain facts without giving opinions, but since it's impossible to be totally unbiased, that shouldn't be the goal.

Conclusion: The theorists are incorrect in claiming that value-neutrality is an appropriate goal for literary criticism.

Reasoning: Literary criticism cannot actually achieve complete value-neutrality, making it an impossible standard.

Analysis: This is a Sufficient Assumption question, which means we are looking for a 'missing link' that guarantees the conclusion. The argument moves from a premise about what is impossible to a conclusion about what is inappropriate. To bridge this gap, look for an answer that establishes a rule such as 'if a goal cannot be achieved, it is not an appropriate goal.' This would turn the impossibility of value-neutrality into a definitive reason to reject it as a valid objective.