#2 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Organization

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[fendrick]

I was torn between E and C, and ultimately chose E. Can someone please explain why C is correct and E is not?

Thank you

[Robert Carroll]

fendrick,

Because your debate is between answer choices (C) and (E), I'll address only those answers.

The author stakes a position - he/she thinks that greenhouse gases are likely responsible for a substantial amount of global warming. In fact, if you did the first question before this one, you would have got that answer choice (D) for that question is the Main Point. And the last sentence of the passage confirms that this is the case. So a first stab at a prephrase for any question about the organization of the passage might be "The author points out that a theory has some apparent defects, but then shows that these defects are merely apparent, making the theory generally sound and a good explanation for a phenomenon."

Answer choice (E) doesn't use strong enough language. It describes the third paragraph as showing that a theory is consistent with certain data. But the author wants to do more than show that the theory is consistent with data - the author thinks that, in part because it's consistent with the data, it's a good theory and probably explains the phenomenon. The purpose of the third paragraph is at least partly to provide grounds for endorsing a theory. So I object to answer choice (E)'s weak language. You could also object to its description of the second paragraph as a place where the author questions the validity of the theory. This seems to describe the author's reservations about the theory as much stronger than they were - the author likes the theory and thinks he/she can show how it meets the challenges.

With that in mind, answer choice (E) is out. Answer choice (C) correctly describes the author's qualified acceptance of the theory in the third paragraph, an acceptable that comes after discussion of its apparent difficulties and how those difficulties are not fatal to the theory.

Robert Carroll

[g_lawyered]

Hi P.S.,
I had a hard time configuring who had negative attitude in paragraph 3- Whether it was the author's or opponent's of green house effect point of view. I saw a lot of negative keywords in paragraph 3 such as: "another question for the proponents", ""But the models CANNOT account for the entirety..." "But the current rise in temperature surpasses the most extreme fluctuations...". This negative tone made me understand that paragraph 3 WASN'T agreeing with paragraph 2. Instead, I understood paragraph 3 to serve as introducing an alternative theory by stating that what was discussed in paragraph 2 isn't good enough. For this reason, I chose answer choice B.

From the explanation posted before, I see that the correct answer choice C is almost opposite of answer choice B. Can someone explain what makes answer B wrong? Where did I misunderstand this structure?

Any clarification would help. Thanks in advance!

[g_lawyered]

Correction**:
I had contender answer choices B and E. Answer choice B has negative connotation that I saw in paragraph 3 as "theory author shows to be PROBLEMATIC and is tentatively REJECTED".
Answer choice E also has that negative connotation that I saw in paragraph 3 as "theory whose validity is QUESTIONED". What makes B and E bad answer choices as compared to answer C?

Thanks again!

[Adam Tyson]

Answer B is incorrect, GGIBA003@FIU.EDU , because the greenhouse gas theory that appeared to be problematic in the first half of the second paragraph (until the author addressed those problems later in that paragraph) is then tentatively ACCEPTED in the third paragraph, when the author says:

In light of all this, it seems reasonable to conclude that changes in the earth’s atmosphere have raised its equilibrium temperature, and that greenhouse gases represent the best explanation of that shift.

Answer E is incorrect because the author never questions the validity of the theory. Some scientists did question it, but the author then told us about other scientists who defended the theory using new methods that were more accurate than the old ones. The author is more of a passive reporter than an active participant in the argument in the second paragraph.