#27 - Specific Reference, Parallel

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I didn't understand why this answer was E specifically. Originally, I thought the answer was D because it demonstrates that the text was changed much like DNA was changed by an outside source like a virus. However, I may have misinterpreted the analogy in the last paragraph. Please help.

- Micah

[Ladan Soleimani]

Hi Micah,

This is a tricky question. Lets start with answer choice (D). The problem here is that they don't give us a reason to think that the account that quotes a different version of the text is actually the original version; it too could be an altered version. In addition it just doesn't match what Steele is saying is going on with the DNA. The last paragraph states that there is a series of mutations in the DNA that Steele suggests is evidence that DNA has been transferred into reproductive organs. It is the mutations in the DNA itself that is used as evidence. Answer choice (E) works because it is the vocabulary in the text itself that suggests it has to have been added at a later date; it isn't a new piece of outside information like most of the incorrect answers contain.

Ladan

[jennie]

I thought C should be the answer because just like Steele's claim, C is an allegation but not hard evidence.

[Adam Tyson]

But is that allegation the same as "circumstantial evidence" that constitutes "a 'signature' of past events that is 'written all over" the altered manuscript itself? That's what we want to parallel here - something built right in to the text that suggests that it has been altered, just like the circumstantial evidence found right in the genes being studied. Answer E gives us that sort of evidence in the form of language in the altered text that, by itself, suggests that it is an alteration.

That's why E is the better choice here, jennie. It's not just evidence, and not just an allegation rather than proven fact. It's that it is circumstantial evidence that is literally "written all over" the thing we are studying! That's a match.

[electiondistraction]

Hi!

I had trouble pre-phrasing this question and understanding what I was supposed to draw from the last paragraph to make the analogy to the answer choices. Could someone please walk me through it a bit?

Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi electiondistraction!

This is definitely a tricky question! As you noted, the question stem refers us specifically to "the kind of evidence mentioned in the last paragraph of the passage." So we need to start by making sure we understand the kind of evidence in the last paragraph. The last paragraph describes it as "circumstantial evidence." It further describes this evidence as "a “signature” of past events that is “written all over” the genes" and as "a distinct pattern of mutations concentrated in particular areas of these genes “strongly suggests” that, in the past, information has been transferred into DNA in the reproductive organs."

So what do we take from all of this? This evidence is circumstantial--meaning it doesn't provide definitive proof--and it comes directly from the source--it's "a signature of past events that is "written all over" the genes."

The full question stem says: "Suppose a scholar believes that the surviving text of a classical Greek play contains alterations introduced into the original text by a copyist from a later era. Which one of the following pieces of evidence bearing upon the authenticity of the surviving text is most analogous to the kind of evidence mentioned in the last paragraph of the passage?"

So we're given a hypothetical situation with a scholar who is trying to support his belief that a surviving text of a play contains alterations that were introduced by a copyist from a later era. The type of evidence in this scenario that would be analogous to the evidence described in the last paragraph needs to be circumstantial and "a signature of his later era written all over the text" in the same way the evidence in the last paragraph was "a signature of past events written all over the genes."

The only answer choice that really relies on evidence that comes directly from the text itself, is answer choice (E): "vocabulary in the surviving text that is typical of the later era and not found in other texts dating from the classical period." This vocabulary is "written all over" the text and would provide a "signature" of the later era during which the scholar believes the text was altered. Thus, answer choice (E) is the most analogous to the evidence in the last paragraph and is the correct answer.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[electiondistraction]

Thanks for breaking that down for me, Kelsey!

[rbitutsky]

Kelsey,

Is it relevant that answer choice E is referring to weakening authenticity of something from an earlier time period (classical test) through the introduction of evidence from a later time period (copyist's alterations), while the text refers to weakening the originality of something from a later time period (current genes) through influence from an earlier time period (a signature of past events)? This is originally what turned me away from answer choice E; it seems like a time reversal of what the evidence in the text is suggesting. Or does this not matter?

[Adam Tyson]

Yes and no, rbitutsky. Even though the passage is talking about what happened in the past, it actually is talking about a chronological order of events in which one thing happened after another thing. The mutations came along after the original was established and changed the original, just like what happened to the manuscript in answer E. In both cases we are looking to the past to see how something was altered or mutated, so that the current thing is not the same as the original thing.

But the chronology appears to me to be less important than the nature of the evidence. To parallel the kind of evidence discussed in the last paragraph, we need to see clues that are found within the thing being studied - written all over it and leaving a signature in it - rather than extrinsic evidence like a confession or a third party account about it. Look for a case where the clues are "baked in" to the subject being studied.