Quote:
3. Which of the following most accurately states the purpose of the passage?
A. To defend a scientific hypothesis from attack by an innovative technique
B. To describe a process by which bacteria can be trained to mutate
C. To present the results of an experiment designed to test an established theory
D. To argue against an established protocol on the grounds that it is outdated
E. To challenge a scientific technique used to prove a questionable theory
Quote:
Can somebody please explain why is Q3 E not correct?
souvikgmat1990 ,
arvindmurugapan , and
AdityaHongunti ,
Option E is an easier call than it appears to be.
Compare options C and E.
C.
To present the results of an experiment designed to test an established theoryE. To challenge a
scientific technique used to prove a
questionable theoryAnswer E is incorrect for a few reasons. The big problems:
1. The main thrust is not about F and W challenging a technique.
Their work challenges the theory.The results of F and K's experiments -- what they found, what they concluded --
are mentioned three times in the passage
The main narrative is:
THEORY exists . . .
F and W experiment . . .
the results of their experiments challenge the theory.
(E) fails to mention those results.
2. The theory is not questionable. The theory is established.****
• (1) This passage is not about challenging a technique, but rather is about experimental results that challenge a theoryF and W did not challenge a technique. They challenged a theory.The
very first sentence says that
"New research by F and W
challenges the theory that
strains of bacteria can be 'trained' to mutate by withholding a metabolite necessary for their regular function."
That sentence opens the passage.
We must not be distracted by mentions of "innovative technique"
or excruciatingly detailed descriptions of experimental steps.
If a technique or an experiment is mentioned, the mention is
connected to or in the context of
results that challenge the theory.(See below. I discuss textual support for C.)
E's emphasis on the other scientists' technique goes too far and is too specificIf the main purpose were to challenge to a scientific technique,
the passage would contain a lot more information
about the other scientists' technique,
probably some challenge to their method and methodology,
and much less mention of the theory's content.
There is not much criticism.
One sentence indicates that "catching" the already-present mutants is difficult.
That statement is not an indictment of or challenge to technique, but rather,
a matter-of-fact reason that F and W
did other experiments . . .
. . . all of whose
results are mentioned,
and all of whose results challenge the theory, not a scientific technique.
"Technique" has very little to do with the main thrust of the passage.
The passage is about experimental results that challenge the theory.References to the theory are numerous (repeating or alluding to the first sentence)
-- First sentence of Paragraph 2:
Fildes and Whitaker argue that the withholding of tryptophan did not induce these mutant strains of bacteria.-- Last two sentences of Paragraph 2:
Fildes and Whitaker conclude that the
mutants are of genetic origin and are not induced by environmental training.
They asserted that
the concentration of tryptophan is unrelated to the appearance of these mutants in the bacteria.
-- First sentence of Paragraph 3:
To confirm
these results (that contradict the theory)
[these results = last two sentences of Paragraph 2: the mutants were already present] . . .
-- One part of the last sentence of Paragraph 3:
F and W
demonstrated that the mutants were in fact genetically present or preadapted F and W's purpose? To test the theory. Results challenged the theory.-- F and W figured out that the other scientists who tested this bacterium
had missed an important detail that was easy to miss.
Two times F and W simply tested whether they could locate the easy-to-miss markers.
They did so through experiments described in paragraph two.
Then they used an innovative technique described in the last paragraph to confirm their conclusion that
the mutation was already present, not created by environmental stress.
But the point of first finding and then confirming the prior existence of
already-mutated genes was to challenge the theory,
not to challenge the technique that the other scientists used.
The experiments and techniques were means to an end,
means by which F and W draw this theory-challenging conclusion:
Fildes and Whitaker conclude that the mutants are of genetic origin
and are not induced by environmental training.
They asserted that the concentration of tryptophan is unrelated
to the appearance of these mutants in the bacteria.Those sentences challenge the theory. Not a technique.
• (2) The theory is not questionable. In fact, the theory is established. First line of the passage:
New research by Fildes and Whitaker challenges
the theory that
strains of bacteria can be “trained” to mutate by XYZ.
In
particular, they consider
the case [ONLY ONE CASE] of
bacteria typhosum that needs tryptophan in order to reproduce.
Earlier researchers [conducting an experiment in line with
THE THEORY]
had grown the bacteria in a medium somewhat deficient in tryptophan.
Result: mutant strains grew.
[Wrong] conclusion: the mutant strains that did not need tryptophan to grow were created by withholding tryptophan.
In their own experiment, F and W proved that in this one case,
gene mutation was not caused by "training," as per the theory.
Now the theory, as paragraph one states, is challengED.
A theory introduced with "the" that has been challenged by the results of one experiment
is not "questionable."
Questionable implies "probably not correct."
One example that does not fit the theory
does not make a theory questionable in that sense.
The theory has been challenged. It may need to be tweaked.
It may need to be abandoned altogether after a critical mass of experiments. We do not know.
But the verb is
challenges.
The article is definite: THE theory.
In one case, two researches proved that a certain bacterium
under certain conditions was not "trained" to mutate.
The bacterium already had mutated.
F and W ran experiments to determine whether
mutant genes were detectable (yes) prior to environmental stress
and whether the genes were already mutated (yes).
Those results challenge the theory.
Option (C) is correct.
Option E is too narrow, too focused, and does not agree with the very first sentence of the passage.
Hope that helps.
_________________
—The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. ~Einstein—I stand with Ukraine.
Donate to Help Ukraine!