Question 3
GraceSCKao wrote:
Hi
avigutman GMATNinja IanStewartI have some questions about three sentences in this passage and about the third question that no previous posts addressed. So I decided to write my own post and hope that you could share some thoughts when you have time.
1. How should we read this sentence?
Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like?I know that this is in the RC section and we do not need to examine the sentences by the same standards in the SC section, but I am really confused about this sentence and thus have trouble with the 3rd question.
even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted,It is clear that the that clause's subject is "the earth," with the first verb "is heating" and the second verb "has," but I am unsure about "from this strange weather effects can be predicted." Does it have its own subject? Does it mean "
effects could be predicted from the strange weather (heating up and increasing ozone hole)" ? If yes, why doesn't it just say "the strange weather's effects can be predicted?"
After practicing so many SC questions that require that parallel verbs be connected by "and," I think it is weird if the subject "the earth" has two verbs without proper connection--the sentence should be revised into "the earth is now heating up and has an ever increasing ozone hole," should not it? It is not my intention to criticize the writing in PC passages, but this sentence's structure does make me wonder whether the subject "the earth" is related to the following parts.
Or, does the verb "can be predicted" go with the subject "the earth" as the third verb? But, "the earth can be predicted from this strange weather effects" does not really make sense, not to mention that the singular "this" does not agree with the plural "effects".
2. How is the option (A) correct?
Quote:
3. It can be inferred from the passage that
(A) We cannot be certain that strange weather effects are a result of the earth heating up and an ever-increasing ozone hole.
(B) The greenhouse effect is the most widely discussed topic in the scientifically informed circles.
(C) If the temperature of the oceans has ceased to rise at an ever-increasing rate, then the rate of global warming has increased.
(D) Strange weather effects have been shown to be due to the diachronic effects of hydrocarbon burning and not to increases in CFC.
(E) Strange weather effects are caused by the increase use of CFCs, CO2, and similar gasses.
I can see why the other options are incorrect, but I cannot articulate why (A) is correct, because I cannot really understand what "the strange weather effects" refer to. I feel that the "strange weather" refers to the heating up and increasing hole, so I think that there will be no such effects without the two phenomena. Maybe the use of the word "result" is not ideal, but it does not seem very wrong to me. On the other hand, I would definitely pick (A) if it said "we cannot be certain that the strange weather effects are a result of human behavior."
3. How much can we tolerate grammatical issues?
Though I am not fully certain, I feel that the following two sentences both contain some errors that would not be ignored if the sentences appeared in the SC section. I am aware that this is in the RC section, but these errors (or not errors, if I have mistaken them) have made me unable to grasp the author's real meaning. I do think that is an important ability for shorter, tighter and more difficult passages.
a. In the end of the first paragraph:
But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations?->What is being pushed here? the evidence? or the most people in the preceding sentence?
b. In the end of the second paragraph:
Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect.->This sentence is in the conditional tone. "Were" should go with "would" to indicate that the author thinks it is an unlikely case. But, "would" is missed in this sentence. Does the author still think that this is an unlikely case?
Sorry experts that my questions are a bit long.
Usually RC passages do not confuse me so much and I do not ask grammar-related questions in the RC section. But since I have difficulty understanding the option (A) in the 3rd question, I hope to enhance my reading ability. Thank you for helping me learn.
As you point out, "the earth" is the subject for the two phrases "is now heating up" and "has an ever increasing ozone hole." In the next phrase, the word "this" refers back to the two facts just stated about the earth -- that it's heating up and that it has an ozone hole. So basically, the phrase tells us that "strange weather effects" can be predicted from the ozone hole and the earth's heating up.
As you suggest, this isn't the most gracefully written sentence, and some of your corrections make grammatical sense. But on RC passages, I wouldn't worry too much about grammar rules. Your top priority is to make sense of the sentence as best you can. Identifying grammar errors or revising the sentence, on the other hand, will probably just distract you. Ultimately, your goal should be to find a logical interpretation that fits with the overall meaning of the passage.
Let's now take a look at question 3:
Quote:
3. It can be inferred from the passage that
(A) We cannot be certain that strange weather effects are a result of the earth heating up and an ever-increasing ozone hole.
The passage tells us that "strange weather effects" can be predicted from from the earth's heating up and the increasing ozone hole. However, it also questions whether these strange effects are really due to "homogenic factors," such as CFCs, and CO2 increases. In other words, the author is questioning whether the homogenic factors, the heating earth, and the ozone hole are actually causing the "strange weather effects."
By asking this question, the author is making clear that we "cannot be certain" that the heating up and the ozone hole are
causing the "strange weather effects." So (A) is correct.
Let's now consider the sentences you mentioned as confusing:
Quote:
Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations?
The first sentence tell us that "most" (i.e. most people) would say we are seeing a greenhouse effect exacerbated by homogenic factors. The second sentence is asking what evidence "most" people would give if we pushed them to defend their beliefs.
Quote:
Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect.
By saying "were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus," the author isn't suggesting this scenario is
unlikely. Rather, the author is acknowledging that the definition of scientific truth isn't a settled question. Nonetheless, the author is asking us to consider what would be the case if scientific truth "were a matter of consensus."
Reading further, we see there is a consensus that "the temperature of the earth... is indeed rising." So if "scientific truth were a matter of consensus," then the belief that "the temperature of the earth is rising" should probably be considered a "scientific truth."
Overall, you're heading in the right direction by analyzing these sentences closely to determine their meaning. But on RC, hunting for grammar errors is just a distraction. Instead, try coming up with the most logical interpretation you can, taking into account the context of the passage as a whole.
I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @
www.gmatninja.com (
hiring!) |
YouTube |
Articles |
IG Beginners' Guides:
RC |
CR |
SC |
Complete Resource Compilations:
RC |
CR |
SC YouTube LIVE webinars:
all videos by topic +
24-hour marathon for UkraineQuestion Explanation Collections:
RC |
CR |
SC