#25 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Except

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[Lukelee]

Inference Q

The passage ends warning. Seismic low zone may cause significant risk.

Even in such region, a plate can slide a shallow angle than steep, if so it will create a great deal of friction

Again avoid all always, any, inevitable, the more

[klaq15]

I don't understand why D is wrong. I understand why E is correct, but isn't D kind of a more general interpretation of the same thing?

Or-- is D wrong because "significant amount" is too extreme...? Although even then, the passage does say that there would be "significant risk of earthquakes".

[Adam Tyson]

My first problem with answer D, klaq15, is "inevitably." The author talks about risks, and tells us that regions with low levels of subduction may have a high risk of earthquakes. That doesn't sound like it's inevitable, just that it's possible. That's why the use of "likely" in answer E is so much more attractive - it's in keeping with the language in the rest of the paragraph, and so adding it to the paragraph doesn't change anything but only expands on or enhances what is already there.

Consider a prephrase here, a prediction for what we are looking for. What could we add to that last paragraph that would continue with the same idea, and which would not bring in new information or change the tone? I'd go with something like "if there's a lot of grinding, it could be worse than if the angle is steep." That looks like answer E to me!

[cecilia]

My first problem with answer D, klaq15, is "inevitably." The author talks about risks, and tells us that regions with low levels of subduction may have a high risk of earthquakes. That doesn't sound like it's inevitable, just that it's possible. That's why the use of "likely" in answer E is so much more attractive - it's in keeping with the language in the rest of the paragraph, and so adding it to the paragraph doesn't change anything but only expands on or enhances what is already there.

Consider a prephrase here, a prediction for what we are looking for. What could we add to that last paragraph that would continue with the same idea, and which would not bring in new information or change the tone? I'd go with something like "if there's a lot of grinding, it could be worse than if the angle is steep." That looks like answer E to me!

Hi Adam - I was able to get this question right but only after having ruled out (E) on first round because of the "is likely", having viewed it as rather strong language for this inference q. But after going over the other answers and not finding anything that fit, I went back to the passage and then re-read (E) and then it clicked. As you said, within the context of the last paragraph, (E) is not really that strong. Would that be a correct interpretation?

The reason why I ask is that if one just went on the tone of language - as an earlier poster had suggested (ruling out certain answer choices based on language ( "always", "any" , "inevitably, etc ), then (C)'s "could suffer' would have been attractive but ultimately incorrect.

Any thoughts on this? Thanks...

[Brook Miscoski]

cecilia,

I would eliminate choices based on whether the language is consistent with the scope of the passage or stimulus. Thus, a passage or stimulus that discusses something as "likely" will support an answer choice concerning "likelihood," though probably not an "always" or "never." It's about matching, not about automatic elimination of strongly worded choices.

[daydreamingsamosa]

What is the difference between C and E? They both make sense if added to the paragraph. Also, I'm confused about the flow of this passage. The problem author talked about in the first paragraph was how there are regions with high subduction activities with low seismic effect. Second paragraph resolves that enigma. And the last paragraph the author suddenly talks about regions with low subduction and how they may still be susceptible to seismic activities/earthquakes. I'm just confused as to why the author would all of a sudden talk about regions with low subduction activities in the last paragraph after talking about regions with HIGH subduction activities with low seismic activities.

[daydreamingsamosa]

What is the difference between C and E? They both make sense if added to the paragraph. Also, I'm confused about the last paragraph of this passage. The problem author talked about in the first paragraph was how there are regions with high subduction activities with low seismic effect. Second paragraph resolves that enigma. And in the last paragraph the author suddenly talks about how through hypothesis in the second paragraph we can make inferences about regions with low subduction and how they may still be susceptible to seismic activities/earthquakes. I just can't see how the hypothesis in the second paragraph is related to regions with low subduction activity. Why would the author all of a sudden talk about regions with low subduction activities in the last paragraph when the hypothesis was about regions with HIGH subduction activities with low seismic activities??

[Adam Tyson]

The second paragraph begins with a proposal from scientists who say that seismic activity is not necessarily tied to the amount of subduction, but to the type of subduction. What matters is how the plates are moving in relation to each other at the point of collision. The rest of that paragraph illustrates the differences. The third paragraph picks up that idea and says, essentially, "but wait, there's more!" If it's the type, rather than the amount, of subduction that matters, then perhaps an area with very little subduction could, at some point, become seismically active. Beware! While it seems a little jarring and out of the blue, it's not, because it's just continuing on with more implications of the theory discussed earlier.

The problem with answer C is that it is focused on the amount of subduction instead of the type of subduction (steep vs shallow angle). That's not what the author is warning us about. More subduction in an area that already has some isn't the problem. It's more seismic activity due to the nature of that subduction that matters.

[BWACHS]

Is B incorrect in this case because it doesn't find support earlier in the passage that lower levels of subduction do in fact lead to shallower subduction angles.

I was between B and E, while it makes sense why E is correct, I'm having trouble figuring out where B goes wrong.

Thank you!