Q27

[tirzamullin]

Can someone explain this question?

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type: Analogy

Let's remind ourselves what sort of "evidence" regarding "authenticity" we're getting in the last paragraph.

It seems to be line 51-55.

A distinct pattern of mutations (alterations) is concentrated in particular areas.

That's the evidence regarding authenticity. We think that there WAS reverse transcription from RNA to DNA in the reproductive organs because of this "distinct pattern concentrated in a particular areas".

That language is frustratingly vague, but it's all we have to go off. If we want it to match up with this analogy about a copyist introducing typos into the original text, I guess we want to see that there is a "distinct pattern of typos concentrated in particular areas of the play's text".

After a 1st pass, none of them sound too much like this, but (E) seems to be the closest.

Maybe there's a better line reference in paragraph 4 for (E). Maybe not.

The distinct pattern of mutations = alterations .. atypical vocabulary

Concentrated in particular areas of the play's text = found in THIS play, but not in other contemporaneous ones

Tough stretch, but it's easier to match up (E) with buzzwords from the 4th paragraph than it is to do the same with any other answer choices.

Perhaps "typical of the later era" is meant to reinforce "a signature of past events".

It's confusing here because the 'past events' are still the more recent events, when we're talking about genes. The "classical period' is essentially the normal version of genes for a given species. The fact that there seem to be a lot of weird variations clustered in the reproductive genes is evidence that the reproductive genes seem to have specifically been altered.

Similarly, the fact that there's a lot of weird vocab in this one play, but not in other plays of the same era, makes it seem like this one play got specifically altered.

Hope this helps.

[layamaheshwari]

Question Type: Analogy

Let's remind ourselves what sort of "evidence" regarding "authenticity" we're getting in the last paragraph.

It seems to be line 51-55.

A distinct pattern of mutations (alterations) is concentrated in particular areas.

That's the evidence regarding authenticity. We think that there WAS reverse transcription from RNA to DNA in the reproductive organs because of this "distinct pattern concentrated in a particular areas".

That language is frustratingly vague, but it's all we have to go off. If we want it to match up with this analogy about a copyist introducing typos into the original text, I guess we want to see that there is a "distinct pattern of typos concentrated in particular areas of the play's text".

After a 1st pass, none of them sound too much like this, but (E) seems to be the closest.

Maybe there's a better line reference in paragraph 4 for (E). Maybe not.

The distinct pattern of mutations = alterations .. atypical vocabulary

Concentrated in particular areas of the play's text = found in THIS play, but not in other contemporaneous ones

Tough stretch, but it's easier to match up (E) with buzzwords from the 4th paragraph than it is to do the same with any other answer choices.

Perhaps "typical of the later era" is meant to reinforce "a signature of past events".

It's confusing here because the 'past events' are still the more recent events, when we're talking about genes. The "classical period' is essentially the normal version of genes for a given species. The fact that there seem to be a lot of weird variations clustered in the reproductive genes is evidence that the reproductive genes seem to have specifically been altered.

Similarly, the fact that there's a lot of weird vocab in this one play, but not in other plays of the same era, makes it seem like this one play got specifically altered.

Hope this helps.

Hi Patrick.

Thank you for your explanation, but I was wondering if you could go into more detail why (D) is not the correct answer. I thought "we must make do with circumstantial evidence" from line 47 of the passage synced nicely with relying on the account of a performance performed during a playwright's time. Am I completely off target?

My test (I'm taking it in Asia) is in 2 days. A quick response would be really appreciated!

[WilliamS670]

Question Type: Analogy

Let's remind ourselves what sort of "evidence" regarding "authenticity" we're getting in the last paragraph.

It seems to be line 51-55.

A distinct pattern of mutations (alterations) is concentrated in particular areas.

That's the evidence regarding authenticity. We think that there WAS reverse transcription from RNA to DNA in the reproductive organs because of this "distinct pattern concentrated in a particular areas".

That language is frustratingly vague, but it's all we have to go off. If we want it to match up with this analogy about a copyist introducing typos into the original text, I guess we want to see that there is a "distinct pattern of typos concentrated in particular areas of the play's text".

After a 1st pass, none of them sound too much like this, but (E) seems to be the closest.

Maybe there's a better line reference in paragraph 4 for (E). Maybe not.

The distinct pattern of mutations = alterations .. atypical vocabulary

Concentrated in particular areas of the play's text = found in THIS play, but not in other contemporaneous ones

Tough stretch, but it's easier to match up (E) with buzzwords from the 4th paragraph than it is to do the same with any other answer choices.

Perhaps "typical of the later era" is meant to reinforce "a signature of past events".

It's confusing here because the 'past events' are still the more recent events, when we're talking about genes. The "classical period' is essentially the normal version of genes for a given species. The fact that there seem to be a lot of weird variations clustered in the reproductive genes is evidence that the reproductive genes seem to have specifically been altered.

Similarly, the fact that there's a lot of weird vocab in this one play, but not in other plays of the same era, makes it seem like this one play got specifically altered.

Hope this helps.

Per usual, great analysis, but I think it's easier to match one of the choices up with the abstract description of the evidence that precedes its concrete description, i.e. 'signature of past events...written all over'. I think that's what the question is asking, because it references the 'kind' of evidence, which I take to mean the evidence in some category. Vocabulary in an extant text that wasn't used during the original time period is definitely a 'signature' of the 'past event' in question, later tampering with the text.