#8 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[jwheeler]

I was stuck between A and B; went with B, but then changed my answer (and regretted it). It sounded very strong (forthright advocacy), but the author does seem to accept what Olsen says & even plays a role in advancing the discussion. She/he points out potential objections, then states Olsen's rebuttal/explanation to each, which made me feel like it was more of an advocacy role than just endorsement.

[Brook Miscoski]

jwheeler,

Because the author does not explicitly state that Olsen is correct, the choice "forthright advocacy" is too strong and is incorrect. "Implicit endorsement" is better, because the author does relate Olsen's point of view without offering any critique.

There is no rebuttal/defense of Olsen's analysis. Instead, Olsen is responding to differences between Botai sites and other sites. So the contrast that you noticed in the passage was not one of arguing against opponents, it was one of showing why the Botai are a special case...there aren't opponents talking about the Botai.

[fersian]

In this question, I looked for some support (line 5) where the author says "momentous". I thought that is more than an implicit attitude.

For me, these questions are difficult. I try to learn from Prep Tests, but when I apply what I learned from some of these explanations, I get confused.
For example, In regards to Question 15 in the reading comp section of Prep Test 84, the Powerscore Tutor posted "The phrase that you point to doesn't actually show that the author is reluctant to agree with Borges. It just states that his literary interest in detective work was consistent with his own fiction writing. This isn't really critical of Borges' view, or Borges as a person. As a whole, the passage doesn't contain any statements critical of either Borges or his views. There's no caution or hesitation in passage A. So by process of elimination, we arrive at answer choice (A). The author accepts Borges' view because his statements are consistent with Borges' view, and he does not present any criticisms of it."

From my understanding, she is saying that that is the best choice because the author doesn't critique the personal they are discussing.

Wouldn't that also hold true in this question as well? Or am I missing something?

[Malila Robinson]

Hi fersian,
In line 5 where the author says "momentous" it is in relation to something that is not absolute. The author says that: "Sandra Olsen has assembled what may be evidence of..." and if it turns out to be true evidence that would be momentous. But if it is not true evidence then it would not be momentous. At the same time the rest of the passage goes on to point out the likely validity of Olen's research, so there is definitely a supportive vibe there, but it is not an absolute showing of support it is more of a nod to the likelihood that Olen's research is valid.
Hope that helps!
- Malila

[flowskiferda]

Why is B better than C? How can we tell that the author implicitly endorses Olsen's theory?

[Adam Tyson]

Our author is neither critical of Olsen nor ambivalent about her word, flowskiferda. It looks a lot more like our author is interested in her research and finds it to be valuable and informative.

The author lays out the evidence that Olsen analyzed, poses a series of questions about what it might mean, and presents Olsen's answers to those questions without any hint of criticism or reluctance, almost as if our author is adopting Olsen's answers as their own. The author refers to clues that seem to support Olsen's position, and credits her from the very beginning of the passage of assembling "what may be evidence of the earliest known people to have domesticated and ridden horses." That sure sounds to me like our author accepts that theory!

The overall tone of the passage is positive, not negative. Thus, a negative answer like "critical ambivalence" cannot be a good match for the author's attitude. That sounds more like someone with a lot of complaints about the way the science was done and who is unconvinced of anything. That's not this passage at all!