Q4

 
andrewgong01
Thanks Received: 61
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 289
Joined: October 31st, 2016
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Q4

by andrewgong01 Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:01 am

Hard question but here's how I got to it :

A) This is a fake comparison. More importantly, it does not seem like either author actaully doubts muscle memory so it is hard to say that one person agrees more with its existence.

B) Left it on my first pass. However, it is hard to say if Passage A would agree with Passage B since Passage A never asserts its reasons are correct and/or the reasons it cited are the ONLY reasons. In fact, Passage A only writes in order to give a few explanations -- so it is likley Passage A would agree with another explanations OR PAssage A may, for some reason, feel strongly against Passage B's reason.

The part I am unsure about is if Passage A's P2 science like experiments on neurons is mutually exclusive with Passage B's stem cell+ protein explanation because if they are mutually exclusive or contradict each other then Choice B could be a tenable answer choice

C) Since Passage A's intent was to give possible explanations it seems like that if indeed Passage B gives a good answer that Passage A knew then Passage A would include it. However, Passage A did not include it, which suggests either Passage B's answer was "rubbish" (and hence A would not talk about it) or Passage A did not know about it [CREDITED RESPONSE]

D) Like B it is hard to say how exactly Passage A views Passage B's explanation UNLESS for some reason they are mutually exclusive/ contradict each other

E) Out of Scope since Passage A never talks about using lab rats to reach a tenable or untenable conclusion.
 
wendaj927
Thanks Received: 1
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 1
Joined: May 07th, 2020
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q4

by wendaj927 Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:56 pm

Had a different explanation for the credited answer (C). Line 3 - 4 explicitly said that "virtually no discussions of it have appeared in
scientific publications", which means that the author was probably unaware of the explanations given by Passage B when he wrote the article. In this way, we do not need to resort to guessing why the author did not include the explanation of Passage B in Passage A. I think this is another proof that no matter how far-fetched some of the correct answers appear, the evidence or the support must be rather explicitly stated in the passage.