I am always interested in any your explanation. Regarding the question 01, I understood why choice C is the correct one from your analysis. Unfortunately, I was wrong for choice B.
For each wrong time, I always try to understand why it is wrong. After reviewing the choice B, however, I till confuse the reason for mistake. Whether choice B is wrong because:
Note: the author mentioned "most pre-1990 literature", and he presented this by:
- the author did not offer an opposing point of view, but he merely did an explanation for a paradox issue? Note: Initially, I understood that author offered a opposing point of view:
I hope you can help me comprehend why choice B is wrong.
hoangphuc wrote:
Hi, I still don't get why answer C is true in Question 1. Passage clearly defines old belief -> paradox -> proponent of old belief -> why paradox -> resource based theory explain. Answer E clearly shows that passage resolves disagreement. Answer C has words "unexpected findings". What ARE findings in this passage? and where passage shows unexpected? Please help to clarify. Thanks
Dear
hoangphuc,
I'm happy to respond.
My friend, in this context, a "
finding" is simply a fact, something that all of us find to be true in our experience. The big "
unexpected finding" in this passage is in sentence #2, what is called the "
productivity paradox." Before 1990, humans naively assumed that more IT would be better--more IT would bring more productivity across the board. Instead, with more IT, productivity went down. That was unexpected.
The passage presents this "
unexpected finding," discusses the responses & explanation from proponent of IT in the rest of paragraph #1, and then a very different take on the paradox from "
resource-based theory" in paragraph #2. In other words, the passage introduces this paradox, and then spends the rest of the time talking about possible explanations of this paradox.
Now let's compare (C) & (E).
(C)
providing an explanation for unexpected findings(E)
resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technologyThe difference here is one of tone. The passage subtly implies that the second explanation, the one deriving from "
resource-based theory," is better. It definitely provides an explanation, and we readers may walk away with some sense that this second explanation is plausible. It simply "
provides an explanation," and some people may be convinced by that. Here's the explanation: you can believe it or not.
The language to "
resolve a disagreement" is much much stronger. That language implies that even the people who initially disagreed were won over and persuaded to agree. Who would those who disagreed? Presumably, the proponents of IT, who presented their arguments in the second half of paragraph #1. We got no response from those people in this passage--we don't hear from them or about them again. We have no idea whether they agree with the explanation from
resource-based theory." Maybe they have been persuaded, but we have no evidence of that. Thus, we have no evidence that a disagreement has be "
resolved." Do you see how this is much stronger language than (C)? Yes, an explanation was provided, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every last person on the planet was persuaded, putting an end to the disagreement and resolving it.
Does this make sense?
Mike
close
03 Jan 2021, 07:20
