Thanks for posting,
tara_amber1!
For a
primary concern question, we want to stay focused on the big picture of the passage. In many questions, including this one, the answer choices are written in generic/abstract language that we have to be certain matches properly to the passage content!
Let's walk through a quick passage map to sketch out what's really happening in this passage:
P1 - Why Tucker is so cool to study/discuss (even though he hasn't been discussed much before now).
P2 - Where the author got his info for the study: library stuff, Tucker's films, interviews with fellow performers, and interviews with Tucker himself.
P3 - interviews with the biography subject - super cool to have, but also not entirely reliable.
P4 - Verification/scrutiny applied to this oral testimony, i.e., what oral testimony info was included
Notice that the author doesn't really discuss the biography/study
itself here. The first paragraph outlines why Tucker was chosen as the subject, and the following paragraphs analyze the information used for the study (source, reliability, ultimate inclusion or not, etc). But no time is spent outlining what the biography itself focuses upon (other than that it is a study of Tucker), what it's main points are, or what its value is.
This underscores the most significant difference between the two answers:
(C) is focused on
the study itself - the main points
of the study, the value
of the study;
(E) is focused instead on the choice of subject matter (paragraph 1) and the methods of research (i.e., sources of information - paragraphs 2-4).
Notice that while paragraph 4 does discuss a bit that only certain information was included, it does not go so far as to outline the 'main points' of the study.
For the sake of future students, let's take a quick spin through the other incorrect answers:
(A) While the author points out, briefly, that there has been insufficient scholarship in this area at the end of paragraph 1, this is hardly the author's primary concern.
(B) While the author uses an uncommon historical investigation path (direct interviews with the subject), he isn't proposing this as a great alternative to other sources of information in general. In fact, the author spends a fair bit of time highlighting the dangers of such information, and the lengths he has gone to to minimize those issues.
(D) No previously held point of view is identified that the author disagrees with. The closest support for this would be the brief note at the end of paragraph 1 that the area has had insufficient scholarship. But lack of scholarship is not the same thing as a defined "point of view", and no weaknesses are identified.
Wrong answers to this kind of question will often shift the scope or target of the descriptions given. Even if the descriptions seem to match the passage, this shift is fatal. Here,
(C)'s 'assessing the value' seems to match the fact that the author is weighing the value of the various sources of information. But
(C) shifted the target: the value of the
study is not the same as the value of the
sources of information.
Please let me know if this helps clear things up a bit!