An ancient Pavonian text describes how an army of one million enemies of Pavonia stopped to drink at a certain lake a...

Batman December 10, 2013

Follow up question.

I've got it right but I do not clearly understand the logical structural meaning of the answer (E). It says " taking evidence that A TEXT has correctly described an effect..." However, can we really find A TEXT describing an effect in the stimulus? Isn't it just saying " archaeologists DISCOVERED that water based life was suddenly absent just after the event was alleged by THE TEXT to have occurred"? I don't think archaeological findings are necessarily and exclusively a type of TEXT,which means, if I am right, students do not take the evidence described by A TEXT but based upon discovering by archaeologists. On the other hand, on the answer (E), it says THE TEXT describes the cause, which manifests on the 1st sentence "...text describes how an army..." So, it seems that the latter part of the answer (E) is absolutely understandable to me. In a nut shell, although I agree and understand the most eligible answer goes to (E), I still do not understand what makes test takers nod their heads up and down about students' fallacy on taking evidence "that a text has correctly described an effect." Many thanks!!

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Mehran December 16, 2013

Notice that the stimulus says, "On the basis of reading the text and an account of the archaeological evidence..."

In the answer choice, "taking evidence that a text has correctly described an effect" is referring to the students reading the ancient Pavonian text description of how the lake went dry and the account of archaeological evidence that water-based life was suddenly absent just after "to show that the text has correctly described the cause," i.e. that an army of one million enemies of Pavonia stopped to drink at that lake.

Hope that was helpful. Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Batman December 17, 2013

Thanks a lot!!!^^

kirbyank July 17, 2018

I'm still a little confused about this answer choice.
Referring to the students "reading the ancient text AND the account of archaeological evidence"... they conclude the events actaully took place.
From the text and the text alone, they only know that "an army stopped to drink from the lake and ran the lake dry". In looking at the text by itself, it is clear to see that the story correctly described an effect but not the cause. However I understand the reading as the conclusion being based both on the text AND the archological discovery. Its the archological discovery that describes the effect, not the text (only the cause). Its the conjunction of both things that they arrive at the conclusion. I dont see any time where the text states anything close to an effect. only tell a story.
Im not sure if my question is even making sense. Im just a little confused and a little more clarification would help.

Thanks!!

Mehran July 19, 2018

Not sure I understand your question.

The flaw here is assuming that because the text correctly described the effect, i.e. the lake went dry, that it also correctly described the cause, i.e. that the army drank the lake dry.

Needless to say, there are many other plausible explanations for the lake going dry, a severe drought for example.

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.