#7 - Global Reference, Main Point

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[jwheeler]

This one threw me off because in C, it says it provides evidence that they DID domesticate horses. However, in the final paragraph, the language is still primarily probabilistic.
"Some of the horses may have been domesticated..."
"these were probably domesticated horses"
"further suggests a relationship...beyond that of merely hunting" (even this one doesn't go so far as to say domestication was inevitable)

The opening paragraph even says that Sandra Olsen assembled what MAY be evidence of the earliest known people to have domesticated & ridden horses.

I chose B, which I understand isn't entirely supported. Even though the article focuses on the (somewhat alleged) role of horses in the Botai culture, it doesn't necessarily purport that they played a critical role.

Any clarification on where I went wrong/how they made such a strong statement in C would be greatly appreciated!

[Brook Miscoski]

jwheeler,

Reading through the passage, the main point was that Sandra Olsen provides some reason to believe the Botai domesticated horses, perhaps for riding.

Choosing (C) is best, because it is closest to that main point. (B) is far too limited because the passage goes well beyond horses simply being important. A main point answer choice cannot stop well short of the topic that the passage covers.

(C) is not an especially strong statement. Claiming that someone provided evidence is not the same as claiming that someone has proved their case. (C) is still probabilistic, because providing evidence is probabilistic, not absolute.

[Lukelee]

Let’s go over

A; statistical tabulation is mentioned only in first paragraph, correlation is OS

B; critical is extreme words choice, author merely mentioned “further suggest.. beyond”

C; domesticated and ridden is key. Nailed it

D; too narrow, just copied 3-5 in first paragraph, no details whatsoever, where is Olsen’s hypothesis

E;revered doesn’t fit with context on the last passage, carefully arranged isn’t revered

[g_lawyered]

Hi P.S.,
Can someone please explain why (D) is incorrect? I thought (D) was supported in both paragraphs 2 and 3. I didnt think (D) "momentous development in human history" was incorrect because it's mentioned in paragraph 1. I didn't see (D) as being a narrow answer. What makes (D) incorrect?
Thanks in advance

[Jeff Wren]

Hi G,

Answer D follows a common wrong answer trap in that it takes two ideas mentioned in the passage and mixes them together to make a statement that is not what the passage actually says.

The relevant lines in the passage are "Sandra Olsen has assembled what may be evidence of the earliest known people to have domesticated and ridden horses, a momentous development in human history" (lines 3-6).

This sentence contains two separate (but related) ideas.

1. Sandra Olsen has assembled what may be evidence of the earliest known people to have domesticated and ridden horses.

2. The first domestication and riding of horses was a momentous development in human history.

Neither the passage nor Sandra Olsen tries to prove the second statement here. It is basically taken for granted, and seems to be a completely reasonable assumption given how being able to ride horses would significantly impact humans' ability to travel, hunt, etc..

Answer D states that Sandra Olsen's findings provide evidence confirming that the domestication of horses was a momentous development in human history. This is not what Olsen's findings provide evidence of. What Olsen's findings provide evidence of is that the Botai people likely domesticated horses and possibly rode them as well.

Whether the first domestication and riding of horses was a momentous development in human history is a separate issue.

[kisa0202]

would you explain why A isn't correct?

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Kisa!

Let's take a look at the text discussing director's cuts: "These restorations are presented with great fanfare as authentic versions, or 'directors’ cuts.' Yet as far as the exhibition side is concerned, authenticity is sometimes allowed to go out the window. Films are presented in an inauthentic setting, utterly shorn of the program that once gave these films life and context."

To summarize, this portion of the text is essentially saying that although film archivists may spend a lot of time restoring films to the way they were when they were originally produced and shown, this ultimately doesn't matter, because everything else about the way these films are shown at festivals is inauthentic. So the practice of restoring these films in and of itself may be valid, but given the way that authenticity is disregarded in every other way, it may ultimately be pointless.

Answer choice A says that these directors' cuts are gimmicks and for marketing purposes. The author doesn't state that this is the case. The author makes no claims about the restoration itself being bad or "gimmicky," but rather takes issue with the ways these cuts are presented in festivals thereafter.

I hope this helps!