Q24

[jamie2469]

Hi, I chose (C) for an anwer, but (D) is the right answer.

according to the lines 48-51, the author tries to
suggest his opinion for an properly answering questions regarding apperances of images.

I thought the lines were his conclusions and so I chose (C) for that.

Could anyone show me why (D) is the case?
Thanks!

[maryadkins]

Good question!

You're right that those are the lines where the author expresses a clear opinion. And that opinion is that the observer can't be taken out of the explanation like he is in the front-to-back explanation.

But think about it—is the author talking about the challenges of FINDING a satisfactory explanation? NO! He might actually think the field-of-sight explanation in lines 11-12 is actually totally satisfactory. It takes the observer into consideration, after all.

(D) is correct because what he's trying to do here is say, here's this one explanation that may make intuitive sense to people, but it doesn't work. And here's why it doesn't work. (D) says that. As such, it better describes the passage than saying, as (C) does, that it's about the challenges of finding a good explanation.

Another way to think about it is that this passage is just about two explanations and why one of them doesn't work. It's not about searching for the right explanation and how hard that is.

(A) is wrong because the author doesn't evaluate experimental evidence for and against the two explanations.

(B) is wrong because they aren't based on different observations.

(E) mischaracterizes the whole thing.

I hope this helps...

[olaizola.mariana]

Hello, could you please elaborate on how (E) mischaracterizes the whole thing?

I might be completely misinterpreting what (E) is saying, but to me it speaks to the author's point that a theory has gained popular acceptance because of the intuitive appeal of its explanation, but that it's still flawed. Is the problem with (E) that it doesn't explicitly mention the author's view that the theory is flawed? Still, I thought (E) had something important that (D) didn't: the connection between theoretical support and popular acceptance.

[maryadkins]

I'm glad you asked, because I think there's a huge lesson here for you on RC, which comes down to tone: positive, negative, and neutral.

The author here has a purpose. It's to criticize one explanation. In other words, it's negative. If we're asked his PRIMARY PURPOSE, that is it. The correct answer will not be neutral. (E) is neutral. If you can try to make a case for why (E) is describing what's happening, fair enough. But even an accurate description of what's happening doesn't cut the core of what the author's primary purpose is unless it explicitly expresses his TONE: Does he favor/endorse it? Does he criticize it? Or does he not care?

(E) is too neutral, as the author is critical.

[olaizola.mariana]

Thank you for that insight!

[phoebster21]

I'm glad you asked, because I think there's a huge lesson here for you on RC, which comes down to tone: positive, negative, and neutral.

The author here has a purpose. It's to criticize one explanation. In other words, it's negative. If we're asked his PRIMARY PURPOSE, that is it. The correct answer will not be neutral. (E) is neutral. If you can try to make a case for why (E) is describing what's happening, fair enough. But even an accurate description of what's happening doesn't cut the core of what the author's primary purpose is unless it explicitly expresses his TONE: Does he favor/endorse it? Does he criticize it? Or does he not care?

(E) is too neutral, as the author is critical.

Is another reason E is wrong is because it's more or less the primary concern of paragraph 3 as opposed to the whole passage? I also thought what that poster above thought about how E seems to be addressing the reason why it's so popular with the public. However, after finishing the whole passage, it became clear that the primary purpose/concern of the overall passage isn't just to explain why some theory seems to align so well with the public, but rather to refute this theory and choose another.

Therefore, while answer E may be right ( or at least factually right but missing the author's attitude) it fails to capture the entire passage as opposed to one paragraph.

Thoughts?

[ganbayou]

Hi,

I'm confused, because the author says "the explanation treats it as though it were as real and three dimensional as the original chair" so it does includes depth element which is pointed out in the last paragraph, isn't it? Why then this explanation falls short in explaining the phenomena?

[snoopy]

Hi,

I'm confused, because the author says "the explanation treats it as though it were as real and three dimensional as the original chair" so it does includes depth element which is pointed out in the last paragraph, isn't it? Why then this explanation falls short in explaining the phenomena?

Check line 22-25 again. The author says that the front-to-back explanation "treats it (it being the chair "inside" the mirror) as though it were as real and 3-D as the original." So, the chair inside the mirror isn't real. This explanation falls short in explaining what mirrors do because the chair inside the mirror isn't real. In order for the front-to-back explanation to work, you have to assume the image "inside" the mirror is real.

Is another reason E is wrong is because it's more or less the primary concern of paragraph 3 as opposed to the whole passage? I also thought what that poster above thought about how E seems to be addressing the reason why it's so popular with the public. However, after finishing the whole passage, it became clear that the primary purpose/concern of the overall passage isn't just to explain why some theory seems to align so well with the public, but rather to refute this theory and choose another.

Therefore, while answer E may be right ( or at least factually right but missing the author's attitude) it fails to capture the entire passage as opposed to one paragraph.

Thoughts?

I would agree with you that E only addresses the acceptance of the phenomenon's (mirror reflection) front-to-back explanation.