Q23

[jimmy902o]

Really not to happy with any of the answer choices offered here.. i was able to narrow them down to A C and D, here is my reasoning behind the 3

I didn't choose D mostly because it said the germ is an "important part of the grain" and in the text the tangential detail is "crucial" to the case can important equal crucial? i didn't think so

I didn't choose A because of the same reasoning that salt and vinegar are important additions but not crucial

I ended up choosing C because of the word essential and also that some skins are removed could be akin to some observation for example that the room of the armed robbery did not have a clock.


Finally, one unresolved issue I have is that if important can equal crucial in answer choice D as I have a feeling it does why is it better than A? Couldn't one make the argument that "these purposes could be attained by adding other ingredients instead" in A could be compatible to having another witness ID something else about the perpetrator? Thanks for any help

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question.

First of all, yes, "crucial" is very close in meaning to "important," so no problem there.

Anyway, what we need to do first is sum up what the passage is saying about the original significance of tangential details to witnesses vs. their significance in the courtroom. In a nutshell, the passage says that such details might seem insignificant while the person is witnessing the crime, but might become "crucial" to the resolution of the court case.

So we're looking for a situation where something is insignificant in one context but really important in another.

(D) is the winner because it's saying wheat germ is unimportant when it comes to flavor and appearance, but it is important with respect to nutrition. So like tangential details, it's unimportant in one context and important in another.

(A) is incorrect because it never says that salt and vinegar are unimportant in some other context. Saying other ingredients could do the trick in the same situation is not the same as saying that there is some other situation in which salt and vinegar don't matter.

(B) is out because it never talks about importance vs. unimportant.

(C) is incorrect because it talks about two different things, not one thing in two different contexts.

(E) is incorrect because it's saying that removal of fat is important for two reasons. But we want to say that it's important sometimes and unimportant other times.

Does that answer your question?

[DavidH327]

Thanks for your question.

First of all, yes, "crucial" is very close in meaning to "important," so no problem there.

Anyway, what we need to do first is sum up what the passage is saying about the original significance of tangential details to witnesses vs. their significance in the courtroom. In a nutshell, the passage says that such details might seem insignificant while the person is witnessing the crime, but might become "crucial" to the resolution of the court case.

So we're looking for a situation where something is insignificant in one context but really important in another.

(D) is the winner because it's saying wheat germ is unimportant when it comes to flavor and appearance, but it is important with respect to nutrition. So like tangential details, it's unimportant in one context and important in another.

(A) is incorrect because it never says that salt and vinegar are unimportant in some other context. Saying other ingredients could do the trick in the same situation is not the same as saying that there is some other situation in which salt and vinegar don't matter.

(B) is out because it never talks about importance vs. unimportant.

(C) is incorrect because it talks about two different things, not one thing in two different contexts.

(E) is incorrect because it's saying that removal of fat is important for two reasons. But we want to say that it's important sometimes and unimportant other times.

Does that answer your question?

For E) "For purposes of texture... some fat may be removed."
Does it mean that fat is not essential for the purpose of texture because removal of fat MAY or MAY NOT help the texture? At first, I thought it parallels with "tangential" part of the passage.
But the second part of the answer choice uses "ALSO important" to indicate removal of fat help both texture and health.
So I thought I could eliminate this answer choice.

What if the answer choice E took out "also"? would that make this answer choice a parallel with the line in question?

Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think if you say "some fat may be removed" then, yes, the fat is not essential for the sake of grinding meat into sausage.

But the sentence makes it sound like "fat there vs. fat removed" is a factor that effects texture and appearance. I wouldn't say necessary or sufficient; it just sounds like it's a causal factor, if we learn that "for the sake of changing texture or appearance, we might remove fat".

The ALSO important is a giveaway that the answer is probably wrong, since we're looking for a contrast, and this doesn't provide a contrast.

Removing the ALSO doesn't necessarily create a contrast. We should see one good / one bad ... or like the original, one is important / one is not important.

If you removed "also", you would still have two positives (improves texture, but improves healthfulness). It would be weird to join two positives with "but", but that's why I think your question ultimately becomes moot.

BECAUSE the ideas go in the same direction, they're using "but also".
It's not the "but also" by itself that's making them go in the same direction.

Hope this helps.