#13 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Organization

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[Lukelee]

First start with Olsen’s finding, there is no fact, just her hypothesis for earliest known evidence

She does rely on stats but continue to hypothesize theory against prehistoric patterns

[Lsat180Please]

I was torn between A and D but I did not think any "findings were evaluated" as written in answer choice A. Can you please discuss how it would look to evaluate findings? Thank you!

[Mitchford]

Could you please provide us with an answer that explains the question at hand.

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the questions, folks! The problem with answer A is not so much the part about "explanations of the findings are evaluated." That is what happens in the passage - horse bones were found in unusual male/female proportions, a hypothesis was based on those findings, and the proposed explanation of the findings was evaluated (and found to make a lot of sense).

No, the real problem with answer A is "various explanations." We only get one explanation for these findings, and that is Olsen's hypothesis. No other explanation for the findings is offered - no alternate hypothesis is advanced, with the evidence for and against both hypotheses evaluated and weighed. It's just "we found this stuff, Olsen explains it thus, and now let's look closer and see what we think about that (or how she got there)."

To clarify, the phrase in answer A about evaluation is not about evaluating the findings, but evaluating the various explanations for those findings. With only one explanation, that answer is out.

[Morehouse20]

Thanks for the questions, folks! The problem with answer A is not so much the part about "explanations of the findings are evaluated." That is what happens in the passage - horse bones where found in unusual male/female proportions, a hypothesis was based on those findings, and the proposed explanation of the findings was evaluated (and found to make a lot of sense).

No, the real problem with answer A is "various explanations." We only get one explanation for these findings, and that is Olsen's hypothesis. No other explanation for the findings is offered - no alternate hypothesis is advanced, with the evidence for and against both hypotheses evaluated and weighed. It's just "we found this stuff, Olsen explains it thus, and now let's look closer and see what we think about that (or how she got there)."

To clarify, the phrase in answer A about evaluation is not about evaluating the findings, but evaluating the various explanations for those findings. With only one explanation, that answer is out.

Thank you for this, this part was confusing me.

[lsacgals101]

Thanks for the questions, folks! The problem with answer A is not so much the part about "explanations of the findings are evaluated." That is what happens in the passage - horse bones where found in unusual male/female proportions, a hypothesis was based on those findings, and the proposed explanation of the findings was evaluated (and found to make a lot of sense).

No, the real problem with answer A is "various explanations." We only get one explanation for these findings, and that is Olsen's hypothesis. No other explanation for the findings is offered - no alternate hypothesis is advanced, with the evidence for and against both hypotheses evaluated and weighed. It's just "we found this stuff, Olsen explains it thus, and now let's look closer and see what we think about that (or how she got there)."

To clarify, the phrase in answer A about evaluation is not about evaluating the findings, but evaluating the various explanations for those findings. With only one explanation, that answer is out.

Thank you for this! Could you comment on why answer B) is wrong?

[kozimbod]

Hi,

I am also wondering why (B) is incorrect. Doesn't the author describe two specific observations about the bones, and then draw a conclusion/explanation from these findings?

Thanks!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi kozimbod!

Happy to address why answer choice (B) is incorrect.

With the question stem asking for a description of the organization of the passage, answer choice (B) states: "A set of specific observations is enumerated and then a general conclusion is drawn from those observations." In contrast, answer choice (D), which is ultimately correct, describes the structure as "A hypothesis is outlined and then a line of reasoning in support of that hypothesis is developed."

As an initial matter, it's important to remember to go back to the passage and be able to point to something that justifies your choice for an answer. This is important for confirming that you're selecting the right answer, even if the question stem doesn't include a specific line reference. Occasionally, as with questions about overall organization and structure, it might be difficult to point directly to a line that justifies your answer choice--in this case, hopefully you can at least look to the notations and highlights you made when reading through the passage. Even when a specific line reference isn't provided, it's especially worthwhile when answer choices use generic, non-specific language like referring to "a general conclusion is drawn" or "a hypothesis is outlined."

Between answer choices (B) and (D), a noticeable difference is that the former describes the structure as "observations" that lead to a general "conclusion," whereas the latter describes the structure as a "hypothesis" being presented and supported. For either answer choice, one should go back to the passage for verification. Here, the first paragraph of the passage is about Sandra Olsen's conclusions about evidence regarding the earliest known domestication of horses (lines 3-5). You are right that the first paragraph also includes observation of bones that were found, but this seems too specific to fit, as the remaining paragraphs aren't entirely about conclusions specifically about those bones, though skeletal remains do come in again at the end (lines 52-55). The conclusions are more broadly about when horses were domesticated.

In that respect, they're more about Olsen's conclusions about the evidence she found, which is introduced in the first paragraph. That is, she hypothesizes that "her finds around Krasnyi Yar in Kazakhstan" (line 2) are the earliest evidence of horse domestication, and the remaining paragraphs provide support for this hypothesis. I can certainly understand answer (D) as a contender, but I think separating out the viewpoints in this passage (i.e., the views of the author of the passage, those of Olsen)--which might have helped in seeing that the author of the passage is describing an archeologist's hypothesis and support for it, rather than the author presenting observations and arriving at a conclusion from them.

[flowskiferda]

Thanks for the questions, folks! The problem with answer A is not so much the part about "explanations of the findings are evaluated." That is what happens in the passage - horse bones where found in unusual male/female proportions, a hypothesis was based on those findings, and the proposed explanation of the findings was evaluated (and found to make a lot of sense).

No, the real problem with answer A is "various explanations." We only get one explanation for these findings, and that is Olsen's hypothesis. No other explanation for the findings is offered - no alternate hypothesis is advanced, with the evidence for and against both hypotheses evaluated and weighed. It's just "we found this stuff, Olsen explains it thus, and now let's look closer and see what we think about that (or how she got there)."

To clarify, the phrase in answer A about evaluation is not about evaluating the findings, but evaluating the various explanations for those findings. With only one explanation, that answer is out.

Thank you for this, this part was confusing me.

I'm a little confused about how"no alternate hypothesis is advanced..."
How do we explain the "one might suppose that they were wild..." in the second paragraph and "it is unreasonable to suppose that the hunters dragged..." in the third paragraph? To me, these are alternate explanations that are ultimately rejected (i.e. evaluated).