Translator: I was trying to determine the meaning of a particular pass

Question

Translator:   I was trying to determine the meaning of a particular passage from a certain nineteenth century author. The phrase would literally be translated as 'The duck rose and fell as on a seesaw." But there was only a one-letter difference between the word for  duck  in the original language and the word for  spirit  in the original language. I had competing interests: first, I wanted to be faithful to the words as they were written by the original author, but second, I had to consider how likely it was that the author meant to write  spirit  and whether there was a typographical error by either the author or the publisher. 
 
Select for   Support for translating as spirit   the statement that, if true, provides the strongest support for translating the word in question as  spirit.  For   Weakens that support ,  select the statement that, if true, most weakens that supporting statement. Make only two selections, one in each column.

SirSanguine · Answer

Its clear that only the first option supports the translation as spirit. Stateemnt-2 is irrelevant, rest S-3,4,5 weakens the support for translation as spirit but we are precisely being asked to weaken the support as claimed by the correct option and not the passage per se. So only 4th statement counters first.

Bismuth83 · Answer

1. The question asks us to  find the statement that   best supports the passage   and the statement that   best weakens the supporting statement   .

2. After reading the text, we can understand that the translator had a decision to either translate the word as spirit, or leave it as duck.

3. Now, we can look at the statements:

-  Taken as a whole, the author's collected writings have vastly more references to spirit than they do to ducks.  This would imply that the author most likely meant the word to be spirit rather than duck.   So, the statement works as a support for translating as spirit.

-  Last month there were newspaper cartoons in the original language that showed ducks on playground equipment.  The statement is irrelevant since we don't know if the newspaper cartoons influenced the author.   So, this statement doesn't work as any.

-  The publisher of the author's works was meticulous and rarely made typographical mistakes.  Here, the publisher would've been unlikely to have meant spirit.   So, the statement might work as a weakening statement.

-  The work in which the sentence occurs has more references to ducks than to spirit.  This would mean that author most likely meant the word to be duck rather than spirit.   So, the statement might work as a weakening statement.

-  The author was meticulous and rarely made typographical mistakes.  Here, the author would've been unlikely to have meant spirit.   So, the statement might work as a weakening statement.

4. Even though we found the supporting statement, there are 3 possible weakening statements. Now remember that the weakening statement  must weaken the support, not necessarily the passage .  "The work in which the sentence occurs has more references to ducks than to spirit"  best fits this.

5. That means our answer will be:   Support  - "taken as a whole, the author's collected writings have vastly more references to spirit than they do to ducks";  Weaken  - "the work in which the sentence occurs has more references to ducks than to spirit" .

2019ms8915 · Answer

c and e dont weaken the point that the word was meant to be "spirit".. saying author/publisher is meticulous does not confirm this word. so D is the answer. B has no relevance to author's work in consideration

PeanutButter429 · Answer

But the logic behind this is that they need to consider whether this was an typographical error or not + they want to stay faithful. I think c, d, and e can all be argued for. I decided on c because publisher will be last to do any edits before printing so if there are any errors they should be last responsible. Its just difficult to really decide which angle you want to weaken from because there are two separate items to decide on - 1. typographical error, 2. faithfullness.

egmat · Answer

So the whole trap of this question is that you're reading it as a translator trying to make the right choice. You're thinking "okay, what helps me decide if this should be duck or spirit?"
But Part 2 isn't helping you translate. It's just asking:  what weakens A's specific claim?

Here's what that means
 
A makes one specific claim:   "The author's collected writings mention spirit way more than duck."

Now, what makes that claim weaker?

D says:  "Actually, in this particular work, the author mentions duck way more than spirit."
That's a direct hit. D is literally saying "your word count evidence doesn't apply here because THIS book has the opposite pattern."

C says:  "The publisher is meticulous."
Okay... but so what? That doesn't make A's word count observation any less true. The author still writes about spirit more overall. C is talking about something completely different (printing accuracy).

Why this matters for TPA
  This is the classic TPA trick: Part 2 looks like it's asking you to solve the same problem as Part 1, but it's actually asking you to  evaluate Part 1's argument , not solve the translator's dilemma.
Once you see that, D becomes obvious. It's the only one that actually challenges what A claims.

eaat · Answer

Why is B irrelevant? I was deciding between B and E for the weakens that support.

I thought B could be right because if they were newspaper cartoons in the original language that show the ducks on the playground equipment, it could relate to the ducks rose and fell on a seesaw. Is that an incorrect assumption or inference that I am making?

Bunuel · Answer

Yes, that inference is too far.

Option B is about recent newspaper cartoons, not the nineteenth-century author or the work being translated. It shows only that ducks on playground equipment can appear in the language today, it does not weaken the support based on the author’s own writings.

The stronger weakener is the statement about the specific work, because the immediate context matters more than unrelated modern cartoons.

Translator: I was trying to determine the meaning of a particular pass

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Support for translating as spirit	Weakens that support
		Taken as a whole, the author's collected writings have vastly more references to spirit than they do to ducks.
		Last month there were newspaper cartoons in the original language that showed ducks on playground equipment.
		The publisher of the author's works was meticulous and rarely made typographical mistakes.
		The work in which the sentence occurs has more references to ducks than to spirit.
		The author was meticulous and rarely made typographical mistakes.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

Translator: I was trying to determine the meaning of a particular pass

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards