Q17

[uhdang]

This is a Main Idea question.

The author is concerned with explaining a new theory of abiogenic theory, how advocates responded to opponents, instance of pursuing abiogenic theory by Swedish government.

Now, let's go to the answer choices.

A) Whether abiogenic theory is derived from conventional theory or not is not discussed. But considering it's a new and "opposing" theory, it's probably not derived from conventional theory.

B) We are only given one instance of drilling company that puts abiogenic theory into action, it is false to mention "small number of drilling companies" as representing the level of acceptance in the scientific community. (fixed)

C) “superior to conventional” is not stated. We just don't know how sound this abiogenic theory is due to lack of available outcome.

D) Uncertainty has been indicated with the absence of results and criticisms. But stating advocates responses to the criticism and Swedish government's execution on this project from the last paragraph presents that this theory is "plausible." (Correct)

E) Although it is true that advocates answered opponents criticism, statement of "gaining broad acceptance for their theory in the scientific community" is too strong, for it is not stated from the passage.

[uhdang]

After posting the reasoning, I sort of have a second thoughts on D) and a question regarding this passage as a whole.

Even though there have been author's attempts to make abiogenic theory "plausible" from third and fourth paragraph, I can't help but thinking this theory is not "plausible" enough to be considered "alternative" as in D) without any given outcome from Swedish government's execution on this theory.

I see that elimination brings down to D), but isn't D) also too strong to be an answer?

And also, what is the "tone" of the author in this issue? Positive? or Neutral?

[maryadkins]

Thanks for the breakdown, and for your question.

In regard to your breakdown, briefly, looks great except that I'd say in reference to your analysis of (B) that a drilling company is discussed in the final paragraph, it just happens to be one owned by the Swedish government.

To your question about (D), "plausible" is not too strong. It just means possible, or conceivably correct. That's definitely supported by the evidence in the passage cited by proponents of the theory.

I would call the author's tone neutral to positive.

[uhdang]

Thanks for pointing out the mistake, Mary.
I see that it's not Swedish government but one company owned by Swedish government, so I fixed it.

Regarding "plausible", I can see now it's not too strong because it simply means "possible." Until now, I seemed to have a sense that "plausible" somehow contained a sense of "applause", so whatever "plausible" describes is something impressive and preferred. I think this is where I got the wrong sense and thought it's too strong. Thanks again for pointing out the right definition.