Q23

[gplaya123]

I just want to verify if my reasoning is correct:

I was between B and C first; E seemed like an answer but at the same time, it was a direct reiteration of line 46 to 48 so I was iffy about it.

Also, I was actually looking for the word "qualify" because the initial part of the 3rd paragraph qualified her work by saying how she made a revision to her theory.

But the reason to dismiss B is, I think: B says some other works qualify her theory; this isn't true. Her study itself qualified it. Hmm... at the same time I am not sure the word "research" refers to her work or someone else's work. Either way though, qualifying her work isn't the "primary" but "secondary."

Reason to dismiss C, I think is: it is definitely a tempting choice because Stave's criticism on Stone's contention definitely gives off an impression that women had less rights; this is what the paragraph is trying to make us infer based on the criticism, not what it is trying to do in terms of structure.

[ohthatpatrick]

Nice rundown of your thoughts!

Let's start with the correct answer (E), and the hilariously-paranoid reason for not picking it, "it sounded too much like the first sentence of the paragraph".

I certainly appreciate your "too-good-to-be-true" suspicion, but you just stumbled on a pretty consistent shortcut in RC:
questions that ask about the function of a paragraph usually have a correct answer that rephrases the topic sentence of the paragraph.

I agree with what you said about (B) ... although it would be weird to say that "research" = "Staves' work", because then we'd be saying that "Staves' work qualifies Staves' work". This answer is really making "research" = "Stone's contention".

We might not have enough support to call their contention 'research', but either way, Staves' work is qualifying their contention, while this answer is saying that their contention is qualifying Staves' work.

With (C), again 'more recent research' is supposed to refer to the Stone's contention. We have no way to justify that this contention is 'more recent' than Staves' work. Also, the Stone's contention does not support Staves' argument. Rather, something in Staves' argument goes against something the Stone's were assuming.

The answer choice doesn't say that the research directly supports Staves' argument, so your "indirect support" line of thinking is somewhat up for grabs. But ultimately there isn't any "new support" in this paragraph. Instead, the paragraph is sort of saying, "assuming Staves is right, part of what the Stone's say is wrong".

That's sort of the nuance between "provides further support" and "suggests the implications".

Hope this helps. Keep up the thoughtful work!