Q22

[LolaC289]

This question asks for the author's attitude towards Steele's theory. The correct answer is D, doubt concerning its plausibility. I chose E, dismay at its lack of rigor.

I think I may be confused as to what "plausibility" and "lack of rigor" means.

To me, plausibility means "seemingly reasonable".
And I think the general view from the author is that Steele's theory is pretty plausible, it is just not necessarily right, because it does not rely on direct evidence, but rather on a radical interpretation (line48-55) from Steele. In line 39 the author describes Steele's theory as "elegant, but speculative". So I thought the plausibility of Steele's theory is of no doubt.

And I interpret lack of rigor to be not rigorous because Steele has no direct evidence to support his view (line44-45, "even if the process Steele...describe is correct, does it ever actually occur?"), his theory is just one possible way to understand the evolution of immune system, but not necessarily the correct one.

Can anyone help?

[ohthatpatrick]

Since we're being asked about author's attitude, we should gather what line references we have to go off (those moments in the passage that indicated the author's voice).

39-40: They've devised an elegant, but speculative story.
44-45: Even if the process is possible, does it ever actually occur?
46-47: We must make do with circumstantial evidence, for evolutionary mechanisms
Rest of P4: They claim to have found stuff, but other biologists aren't convinced and suggest alternative interpretations.

My prephrase would probably be that the author's attitude is
"intrigued, but it's still too early to tell"

(A) confident in its truth is too strongly positive. Line 44-45 goes against that.

(B) indignation is way too strong

(C) distrust? Huh?

(D) 'doubt concerning its plausibility' is weird, but it ultimately wins. Line 44-45 says "Does it ever actually occur"? That's doubt, for sure.

(E) dismay? huh? Also, the 'elegance' of Steele's story is sort of suggesting that the author admires the rigor of the story that Steele has built. The author thinks it's a well thought out idea; she just wonders if there any actual evidence for it.

Three of these are very strongly negative:
indignation ... distrust ... dismay

One is very strongly positive:
confident about its truth

The correct answer, like most correct answers on attitude questions, is mildly positive / mildly negative


(E) would be better if it said "dismay at its lack of evidence".
But evidence ≠ rigor.

A rigorous theory, I think, means that the underlying mechanism is well described and the theory makes consistently correct predictions.

Plausibility is a slightly higher bar than possibility.
It's POSSIBLE that Tom Cruise is sitting in the bathroom of the coffeeshop where I'm currently typing. But that doesn't make it PLAUSIBLE that he's there.

A plausible excuse is a believable one.

I agree that the author seems to think that Steele's story is coherent / elegant, so that's most of the way towards 'plausible'. But 'doubt' is such a soft word, that we're not saying with (D) that the author thinks Steele's story is IMPLAUSIBLE. We only saying that there's doubt about whether it's plausible, and that's conveyed by the idea of "even if it's possible, does it ever really happen?"

Hope this helps.

[LolaC289]

Thank you, ohthatpatrick! You've always been so helpful.

I agree that dismay is too strong in this circumstance, and I think your explanation makes sense, it is about choosing the best out of five.

Just a sidenote: In many science passages, when the attitude of the author is asked towards certain theory, "lack of rigor" is a very popular wrong answer choice...... Don't know why. I remember choosing it twice and each time I was wrong.