Question 5
tkorzhan1995 wrote:
GMATNinja, could you please help me to understand where I am getting wrong with my analysis? For the following question, I originally selected E. The first par provides examples of essential presumptions mentioned by Wegener in his book The Origin of Continents and Oceans. It is stated how valuable this book to geologists today. However, W's theory has been rejected by geologists in the past. Second par explains why W's theory was rejected by geologists in the past. One of the explanations is by Anthony Hallam. Per Anthony, many scientific phenomena have been accepted
before they could be fully rejected. As a result of tying info from the first and second par, I determined that essential presumptions are examples of phenomena that have been accepted before they could be fully explained.
What is an issue with this analysis? what should I take into account to avoid similar mistake in other questions?
The author of the passage discusses the “essential presumptions” (see highlighted text) of The Origin of Continents and Oceans most likely in order to
A) indicate features of Wegener’s theory that caused it to be doubted in its day
B)show why Wegener’s theory is now regarded as prescient
C) indicate differences between plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift
D) cite features of the theory of continental drift for which no evidence was available in Wegener’s day
E)point out aspects of Wegener’s theory that were accepted well before the advent of plate tectonics
When it comes to detail questions you have to look back at the exact context of the detail in question. The detail mentioned in question 5 really has nothing to do with the discussion of Anthony Hallam -- more on that at the end of this post, but first look at the discussion of "essential presumptions" in the first paragraph:
To most geologists today, Wegener's The origin of Continents and Oceans appears an impressive and prescient document, containing several of the essential presumptions underlying plate tectonics theory: the horizontal mobility of pieces of Earth's crust...
Here, you can see that the author is discussing how geologists
today view Wegener's work -- they're pretty impressed with the "essential presumptions" that he made.
Next, we learn how geologists of his time viewed his theory: "in its day Wegener's theory was
rejected by the vast majority of geologists."
It's only much
later that Wegener is vindicated, when further evidence is offered for the plate tectonic theory.
With that in mind, look at (E):
Quote:
(E) [The author of the passage discusses the “essential presumptions” of The Origin of Continents and Oceans most in order to] point out aspects of Wegener's theory that were accepted well before the advent of platetectonics
As discussed above, these aspects weren't accepted until much later. So, the author doesn't include them in order to say that they were accepted well BEFORE plate tectonics.
(E) is out.
Here's (B):
Quote:
(B) show why Wegener's theory is now regarded as prescient
This makes sense! Geologists
today are impressed by Wegener's work because his presumptions turned out to be pretty spot-on.
(B) is the correct answer to question 5.
A bit more on how Hallam fits into the picture: as you mentioned, in the second paragraph the author discusses
why geologists in the past rejected Wegener's theory. One reason could be that it lacked an "adequate mechanical basis." Hallam dismisses this explanation, saying that other things have been accepted before they were understood.
However, there's no indication that Wegener's theory was accepted before it was understood -- in fact, the author says that it was NOT accepted in his day! So, the "essential presumptions" are definitely not examples of things that were accepted before they were understood.
I hope that helps!
close
02 Jul 2021, 10:59
