jesliwoo wrote:
Everyone,
Don't you think that the correct answer: 'point out an exception to a generalization about the history of people’s understanding of amber' is actually having a wrong meaning? As we discussed above, the exception we have here is 'to the misunderstanding', but the answer is: 'to a generalization about the history of people's understanding', so it's actually not what we are talking about. Because 'a generalization about history' is something like 'people did not understand amber until 1900s', and 'an exception to a generalization' is like 'people actually knew amber in 1850s'. Pliny did not make any generalization about history, he made an understanding about amber. So I am confused. Please help me with this. I know I am wrong but I don't know why I am wrong. I got the correct answer but I really can not convince myself when I read the answer. So do I understand 'an exception to' incorrectly? Thank you!
As a reminder, here's what the author wrote:
Quote:
Although Pliny in the first century recognized that amber was produced from “marrow discharged by trees,” amber has been widely misunderstood to be a semiprecious gem and has even been described in mineralogy textbooks.
This one sentence tells us two things:
- Amber has been widely misunderstood to be a semiprecious gem.
- Although amber has been widely misunderstood in this way, Pliny recognized that amber was produced from "marrow discharged by trees."
It doesn't seem like you've had any trouble with the reading here — but to be clear, Pliny is the EXCEPTION, while the GENERALIZATION is that amber has been widely misunderstood.
Now, when looking at the answer choice, it seems like you're getting hung up over the difference between "understanding" and "misunderstanding." However, these two words are not necessarily logical opposites, and they can be used in multiple ways. If I'm right about this, then it might help to better understand the usage.
- If I say, "People understood the plague to be a punishment from God," what I mean is that people thought the plague was a punishment from God. If I believe that God punishes people with plagues, then I might consider their understanding to be correct. If I don't believe in God at all, then I might consider their understanding to be mistaken. This sentence doesn't tell you what I believe about the plague; it only tells you how these people thought of the plague.
- If I say "People misunderstood the plague to be a punishment from God"... well, I still mean that people thought the plague was a punishment from God. In addition, I'm explicitly saying, as the author, that their understanding was mistaken.
Now let's consider "understanding" and "misunderstanding" as nouns:
- If I say, "The chief's understanding of this crisis is deeply flawed," what I mean is that the way the Chief thinks about this crisis is deeply flawed.
- Now, it would be inappropriate me to say, "The chief's misunderstanding of the crisis is deeply flawed," because that's a double negative. More proper usage would be, "The chief deeply misunderstands this crisis," or "The chief has a deep misunderstanding of the crisis."
Choice (D) says, "The author of the passage refers to Pliny most probably in order to point out an exception to a generalization about the history of people's understanding of amber."
In other words, the author most probably refers to Pliny because Pliny's understanding of amber (i.e., his thinking about amber) is an exception to a generalization about the history of people's understanding about amber (i.e. their thinking about amber). Pliny knew that amber was produced from something inside of trees in the first century, although the general understanding of people's thoughts regarding amber is that they thought it was a gem.
(Unrelated: in my personal opinion, Amber is definitely a gem. If you know me personally, you'll get the joke.)
I hope this helps!