Q23

[rishisb]

Greetings, Atlas:


Could you please explain why A is the answer to this "most suggests" RC question? Can you also explain why E is not it? My difficulty here, as I explain, is that I thought that both answers were wishy-washy, and thus, I didn’t really know how to choose between them.

Here’s why I dismissed A. I did away with A, which says that the policies described in paragraph 3 further a university's financial interests, because the author had said earlier that unless these policies are changed, the university will lose its research talent to commercial groups. I assumed, of course, that he’d view this loss not in "keeping" with the university's financial interests. But, on the flip side, I also thought that there was good evidence to think that A is the right answer: The last lines of passage say that author’s preferred option _ i.e.: the fourth one"”will "reverse" the profiteering of universities and make universities benefit in far fewer circumstances from the professor’s patent/invention. So, because I had reason in support of A, but also reason against A, I eliminated A.

I went for E because the author seems to agree with Chew that the universities’ use of I.P. violates "common law" (line 51) --- although it’s clear that the author also thinks that the basis for I.P. ownership is uncertain and unsettled. Answer E’s tone is not prefect _ i.e.: it seems too definite or too strong"”but I glossed over this worry because one could accept that something is illegal even if there is no clear justification for why it’s so. Where have I messed up here?

In short, I saw reason in favor of A and E, and reasons against A and E. Because of that, I didn’t know how to decide which answer was the correct one.

Thank you!

[aileenann]

These sorts of questions are always the toughest - the ones where two answers seem perfectly reasonable and you know that one of them must nonetheless be wrong, either clearly wrong or simply not as good (in the case where they are asking for the "best" or "most" apt answer choice).

I think the best reason to get rid of (E) is the incredibly strong language - violating the common law may not be quite the same as being illegal. And apart from that, I don't think we have any support for the "possibly immoral" bit of (E).

I also think you might have made a little leap in thinking you had evidence against (A). In particular, losing faculty may be against the institution's general interests (say interests in having great/famous/smart faculty) without going against its financial interests (not guaranteed, but we can imagine a world where getting read of the head honchos and hiring cheap and worse professors could temporarily or even permanently be in the institution's best interests, ironically).

Does that make sense? Let me know if you have follow-up questions or critique!

[rishisb]

Good day, Aileen:

Thank you you explantion of why E is wrong. I had one follow-up, however.

E, you said, was wrong because it contains extremely strong language. But, sometimes, I've noted that an answer choice that has extreme language is the correct answer to an RC question. For instance, on question 11 in this section, I dismissed what I thought was an answer choice that was too strong, although this answer choice turned out to be the right answer! [I wrote about Q11 here: pt-43-s1-q11-code-switching-passage-t1533.html (I'm the fourth one from the top)]

I guess, then, that the take away point for me this: Do not automatically or mechanically dismiss an extreme-sounding answer choice -- unless there is a less extreme, better answer. Sometimes -- as is the case in Q23-- an extreme answer will be wrong; othertimes, it won't be.

[ivankrasnov88]

You know, I understand your reasons for disliking A, namely that in the first paragraph it states that faculty "may be tempted to go to those institutions", but my reason for not eliminating A was precisely this line and lines 57-58.

Faculty being tempted to leave isn't necessarily NOT in keeping with financial interests. Perhaps financially, 'squeezing the last drop' out of the faculty may be financially sound, but not for the benefit of the long-term research goals. In short, I think knocking out A would be an example of a 'too specific overgeneralization'.

Lines 57-58 state that this is maximizing their profit participation. That was my reason for picking A since I could point to an element of the text that wasn't directly contradicted.


Also, like you, I was very tempted by E. But my problem was with the 'possibly immoral' bit, as aileenann said. Just because they may be overreaching doesn't necessarily mean immoral. (Immoralily isn't stated or implied here).


Perhaps an answer to your question, not speaking on behalf of aileenann, (feel free to correct me), yes you should definitely get set off by strong language. It should tip you off and give you reasons to doubt the answer, unless you can point to a line in the passage that states it.

[jamiejames]

could you explain why D is wrong?

thank you!

[maryadkins]

I guess, then, that the take away point for me this: Do not automatically or mechanically dismiss an extreme-sounding answer choice -- unless there is a less extreme, better answer. Sometimes -- as is the case in Q23-- an extreme answer will be wrong; othertimes, it won't be.

I think this goes back to Aileen's point before--that sometimes you're choosing the best answer of two that seem right. And yes, when this happens, more extreme language that is unsupported by the passage is a good reason to get rid of one of them.

Other times, language may seem stronger than you like in the answer choice that seems best. But if there's not another solid contender in the mix, you go for it, anyway. But the rule remains that it will be supported by text in some way. It always goes back to literal support from the text. "Extreme language" rules can't be discussed in a vacuum without considering language in the passage--is it supported, or not?

could you explain why D is wrong?

(D) is too strong (speaking of extreme language). "Invariably" means without exception, all the time. The author does not anywhere in the passage suggest that all the time, without exception, policies are bad for faculty's motivation.

Hope this helps!

[Mab6q]

What really tripped me up about this question was that it wasn't necessarily asking for something mentioned from the passage, but something that expresses the author's view. So, I went into it thinking we want something that shows how these university policies are unfair or not effective. Now when I got to A, i was really thrown off because it is definitely inferable from the text, but I just didn't think it represented the author's view (maybe I was thinking too broadly), whereas the D, which was too strong and probably not inferable as a specific claim, was more in line with the MP made by the author. Still, A just seems so limited.

My question is about the wording of this question and how we should approach it. Should I prephrase what my understanding of the author's view is before looking at the answers and then try to match it with that, or should I treat it more like a inference question to find support for it in the passage ?

[tommywallach]

Hey Mab,

I'm never against prephrasing, so feel free to do that. I agree with you that this one is tricky, but if the author wrote the paragraph, and you were able to infer X from the paragraph, then it's fair to say that the author believes X.

-t